The Assembly met at 10:30 am (Speaker [Mr Newton] in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes' silence.

Assembly Business

Mike Nesbitt: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Carál Ní Chuilín: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Stewart Dickson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I am taking no points of order at this stage of the proceedings.
Members, having been given notice by both the First Minister and deputy First Minister —

Carál Ní Chuilín: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Alex Attwood: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Jim Allister: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I am taking no points of order at this stage in the proceedings.
Members, having been given notice by both the First Minister and the deputy First Minister —

Jim Allister: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.  How can a statement that is not a ministerial statement be made to this House?

A Member: Keep it down.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: I am taking no points of order at this stage in the proceedings.

Jim Allister: Farce.

Edwin Poots: Show the Speaker some respect.

Mr Speaker: Members, having been given notice by both the First —

Alex Attwood: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Carál Ní Chuilín: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I am taking no points of order at this stage of the proceedings.

Mike Nesbitt: Shame.

Jim Allister: Shame.

Some Members: Shame.  Shame.

Mr Speaker: Members, having been given notice by both the First Minister and deputy First Minister —

Alex Attwood: You have to explain yourself to the House.

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to resume his seat.

Steve Aiken: Well, the other half of the Government has just walked out.

Mr Speaker: I have been given notice by both the First Minister and deputy First Minister —
[Interruption.]
— and 30 Members under Standing Order 11 —
[Interruption.]
— I have summoned the Assembly to meet today for the purpose of an oral statement by the First Minister on the renewable heat incentive scheme and a motion on the exclusion of a Minister from office under section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
[Interruption.]

A Member: Bye, bye.

Some Members: Shame.  Shame.

Resignation of Member: Ms Jennifer McCann

Mr Speaker: Before we proceed with today's business, I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Ms Jennifer McCann giving me notice of her intention to resign as a Member for the West Belfast constituency with effect from 6 December 2016.  I have notified the Chief Electoral Officer in accordance with section 35 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

New Assembly Member:  Ms Órlaithí Flynn

Mr Speaker: I also wish to advise the House that I have been informed by the Chief Electoral Officer that Ms Órlaithí Flynn has been returned as a Member of the Assembly for the West Belfast constituency to fill the vacancy resulting from Ms McCann's resignation.  Ms Flynn signed the undertaking and Roll of Membership and entered her designation in the presence of the Speaker and the Chief Executive on 7 December 2016.  The Member has taken her seat.  I welcome the Member to the House and wish her success.

Jim Allister: Mr Speaker, before this turns into a total farce, I implore you to take a point of order on the probity of what is about to happen, in that this could not be a ministerial statement in that it does not have the consent of the joint office on whose behalf it purports to be made.  There is no power in Standing Orders or in legislation to recall the House —

Mr Speaker: I ask you to take your seat.

Jim Allister: — for the purpose of a personal statement, and that is what this is.

Mr Speaker: Mr Allister, I ask you to take your seat.
I have received notice from the First Minister that she wishes to make a statement.
[Interruption.]
As the statement was made available to Members within only the last 15 minutes, I intend to suspend the sitting for 30 minutes to allow Members to read the statement.  The sitting is suspended until 11.00 am.
The sitting was suspended at 10.36 am and resumed at 11.03 am.

Ministerial Statement

Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme

Mr Speaker: Members, the sitting is resumed.

Mike Nesbitt: On a point of order.

Mr Speaker: If the Members will allow me to make a few opening remarks, then we will take points of order.
Before I proceed, Members will be aware that there is a requirement on me to make announcements on certain items of business to the Assembly.  It is not the procedure to take points of order until that business has been transacted.  I anticipated fully that Members may wish to make points of order in relation to this morning's business.  I have a few remarks to make to explain the issues that I have considered this morning and will then take points of order.
I have received notice from the First Minister that she wishes to make a statement.  Before we commence, I advise Members that the original request on 14 December sought to recall the Assembly for the purpose of the First and deputy First Minister making a statement on the renewable heat incentive scheme.
Subsequently, I have had a communication from the deputy First Minister that the statement does not represent the position of the Executive Office.  Having taken legal and procedural advice this morning, I can say that it is clear that, in my role in relation to the procedures of the Assembly and not the procedures of the Executive,  I have discharged my responsibilities under Standing Orders to recall the Assembly.  Earlier this morning, I wrote to the Executive Office stating that I would be content to be notified if the deputy First Minister, or another Minister on his behalf, also wished to make a statement.
I am now content to take points of order.

Carál Ní Chuilín: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.  Thank you very much for that advice, but it is still clear — it is at the top of the written statement that Mrs Foster is going to deliver to the House — that she is making the statement on behalf of herself.  You have received correspondence from the deputy First Minister to indicate that.  Is it the convention that, on behalf of the Executive, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister are then advised by your office to make two separate statements in order to satisfy the recall of the Assembly?  I ask for advice on that.

Mr Speaker: Having taken legal and procedural advice this morning, I can say that it is clear that, in my role in relation to the procedures of the Assembly and not the procedures of the Executive, I have discharged my responsibilities in line with Standing Orders to recall the Assembly.

Mike Nesbitt: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.  As you said, Mr Speaker, you recalled us on Friday, issuing a notice saying that you had received a valid notice from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister and that the purpose of summoning us today was to receive a statement from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister.  You have now made clear that the deputy First Minister says that he no longer endorses what Mrs Foster is going to say.  That invalidates Standing Order 11, so can you explain to the House under which Standing Order you propose to proceed?

Mr Speaker: I understand the frustration of many Members on the matter.  I want to reiterate that, earlier this morning, I wrote to the Executive Office indicating that I would be willing to accept a statement from the deputy First Minister or, in his absence, a statement from another Minister on his behalf.  I have said twice now, I think, that I have discharged my responsibilities under Standing Orders to recall the Assembly.  That is where we stand at the moment.

Mike Nesbitt: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.  I have asked you directly under which Standing Order you intend to proceed.  The fact that you cannot answer forces me to ask it again:  specifically which Standing Order are we operating under?

Mr Speaker: Mr Nesbitt, I suppose that we are coming close to you challenging the Chair's decisions.
[Interruption.]

Steve Aiken: No, he is not.

Naomi Long: Not even close.

Mr Speaker: Let me be quite clear:  I have taken legal and procedural advice from the officers of the Assembly, and I am content that we are proceeding with their advice in line with Standing Orders.

Jim Allister: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Carál Ní Chuilín: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Further to that point of order, Ms Ní Chuilín.

Carál Ní Chuilín: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, there is an acceptance in what you have just said that allowing this statement to continue is undermining the jointery of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister and the Executive Office.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Alex Attwood: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: That really is not a matter for me to decide on.  That is a matter for the Executive to address.

Jim Allister: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Alex Attwood: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Point of order, Mr Attwood.

Alex Attwood: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.  To put it moderately, I cannot agree with the last comment that you made.  You have said to the House today that you will accept a second statement from a member of the Executive Office or from some other Minister on his behalf.  Can you explain to the House how you reconcile that with not just Standing Orders but the Northern Ireland Act and subsequent legislation and the Good Friday Agreement, at the core of which is architecture that states that there shall be a joint office of First Minister and deputy First Minister?
Where do you have the authority, Mr Speaker — where do you have the authority? — to say to the Executive Office to make two statements?  You have a duty to explain that to the House, to the people of Northern Ireland and to all those who endorsed the Good Friday Agreement, which established that office.

Mr Speaker: I think that you have made yourself quite clear.  I have discharged my responsibilities under Standing Orders to recall the Assembly.

Stephen Farry: Point of order.

Jim Allister: Point of order.

Mr Speaker: Point of order, Mr Allister.

Jim Allister: Thank you, Mr Speaker.  We were notified to come here today to hear a ministerial statement.  The Order Paper decrees that we will hear a ministerial statement.  I presume that the Order Paper is issued under your direction.  Can you, therefore, indicate how this now can be a ministerial statement from the Executive Office since one half of that office has withdrawn its imprimatur?  Surely this no longer is a ministerial statement.  I ask you to rule whether it is a ministerial statement.  If it is not, by what Standing Order has the House been recalled to hear a personal statement?  I know of no such Standing Order.  Is this a ministerial statement?  We need to know that.

Mr Speaker: I will take you back, Mr Allister, to the remarks that I have previously made indicating that, this morning, I wrote to the Executive Office stating that I would have been content for a subsequent statement to have been made by the deputy First Minister.  I believe that I have discharged on all the advice that I have been offered this morning.  I have discharged my responsibilities under Standing Orders to recall the Assembly.

Stephen Farry: Point of order.

Mike Nesbitt: Point of order.

Jim Allister: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, could you rule —

Carál Ní Chuilín: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker —

Mr Speaker: Sorry:  Mr Allister has the Floor.

Jim Allister: Very much obliged.  Could you rule whether what it is intended that we will hear is or is not a ministerial statement?

Carál Ní Chuilín: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, I still persist that, if the statement from the First Minister is allowed to go ahead, it is undermining the joined-up approach of the Executive Office, and I believe that you are setting a precedent.

Mr Speaker: The Assembly was recalled at the request of the Executive Office.  I believe that I have discharged my responsibilities.  Matters around that are for the Executive themselves to deal with.

Stephen Farry: Point of order.

Mike Nesbitt: Point of order.

Alex Attwood: Further to that point of order.

Mr Speaker: Point of order, Mr Farry.

Stephen Farry: Thank you, Mr Speaker.  It is readily understood and, indeed, backed up by legislation that this is a joint office.  The office cannot issue a press statement, issue a line to the media or give separate answers to oral or written questions:  every single decision that emerges from it has to be signed off by the two halves of the office.  Therefore, I add my voice to the requests for clarification on how this can be taken forward.  The Assembly was recalled on the basis of a statement from the Executive Office, which clearly we do not have.  Will you, therefore, clarify whether we are, in fact, receiving a personal statement from the person who happens to be First Minister as opposed to a statement in the name of the Executive Office?

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr Farry.  Again, I understand the frustration of Members in the Chamber on the matter.  It is a matter for the Executive.  The decision has been made by the Executive.  It really is my responsibility only to discharge under Standing Orders the recall of the Assembly.  With all the advice that I have received from officers, I believe that we have recalled the Assembly in line with my responsibilities and Assembly procedures.

Naomi Long: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.  Can you clarify whether, on the basis that you are proceeding today, we will now expect Standing Orders of the House to be changed so that both the First Minister and deputy First Minister will answer questions for oral answer and will have an opportunity to make a statement on every issue that the Executive Office brings to the House in order that this be done in a consistent manner?

Mr Speaker: That would not be an ideal situation but it is not a situation of my making.  We have discharged our responsibilities.

Mike Nesbitt: On a point of order.

Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Point of order, Mr Kennedy.

Danny Kennedy: Thank you, Mr Speaker.  Can I bring you back to the original request by the First Minister and deputy First Minister on behalf of the Executive Office to bring forward a statement on RHI today?  Clearly, when that original request was made, circumstances were different, but, in a fluid situation, it appears that events have overtaken it.  It is clear now that the current statement is not being made with the agreement of the deputy First Minister.  Surely the item of business for which the Assembly was recalled — the joint statement to the House — would, with other items of business, then fall, allowing the second and principal item of debate, namely the motion of censure.  Then, with some amendment, the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party could have made her points in respect of the scheme.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr Kennedy, for that point of order.  I received a valid request from the Executive Office to recall the Assembly.

Mike Nesbitt: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Alex Attwood: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Point of order, Mr Nesbitt.

Mike Nesbitt: Mr Speaker, you say that you have written to the Executive Office.  Did you get a response?  If so, what was it?  Specifically, are you content that the independent Member of the Executive, Claire Sugden, had the opportunity to make a statement today?

Mr Speaker: I have not received a reply from the Executive Office as yet.  Executive business is really —
I have received no request from Claire Sugden.

Alex Attwood: Further to that point of order.

Carál Ní Chuilín: Further to that point of order.

Eamonn McCann: On a point of order.

Mr Speaker: We have not taken a point of order from Mr McCann as yet.

Eamonn McCann: Thank you, Mr Speaker.  Over the past 30 minutes or so, you have repeated a number of times that you are content that we are proceeding on a proper basis.  With all respect to you, it is nice to know that you are at ease with your decisions on procedure, but not everybody would agree.
It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that, since no statement can be made on behalf of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, which was the basis on which we were called here, we have no proper way to proceed.  Is it not the case that what ought to happen now is that we should proceed, as quickly as it can be arranged, procedurally and in relation to precedent, to an election to this House?  It is perfectly clear that the House is not operating as intended and it is not operating in a way that serves the interests of the people of the North.  Procedurally, it seems to me that we are now in la-la land and limbo land.  Please can we stop this charade?

Trevor Clarke: On a point of order.

Mr Speaker: I received advice this morning from the officers and I have discharged my responsibility under Standing Orders to recall the Assembly.

Naomi Long: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Trevor Clarke: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I will take a point of order from this side.

Trevor Clarke: Thank you, Mr Speaker.  Members have an obsession here this morning with process.  The same Members who have been calling for clarity around the RHI scheme.  At what stage are we going to let the First Minister speak, given that you have outlined that you have taken procedural and legal advice from your officials?
[Interruption.]
At what point are we going to hear the statement from the First Minister that many people outside the Chamber want to hear?

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Naomi Long: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Will Members take their seats for a minute?  If Members are going to continually raise the same point of order, we are not going to go forward on this matter.  If Members have different points of order to raise, other than the ones that I have addressed within my responsibility to recall the Assembly, I will hear those.

Carál Ní Chuilín: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.  I repeat this again.  Given the remarks from the DUP Whip, who is indicating that the First Minister is making this statement to give an account of the RHI scheme without the consent of the deputy First Minister, I appeal again to the advice given to the Speaker that this is actually challenging the integrity of the Executive Office.  I ask for that advice to be considered.

Mr Speaker: That really is a matter for the Executive.  I have considered all my responsibilities under the request that was lodged for the Assembly to be recalled.

Naomi Long: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Alex Attwood: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Point of order, Mr Attwood.

Alex Attwood: Mr Speaker, I have to say to you that I do not understand your ruling and how you can reconcile that ruling either with the notice that all of us received in the Chamber or with the Good Friday Agreement, the democratic will of the people of Ireland and our Standing Orders.  Consequently, given that you are relying on what you referred to as "legal and procedural advice", I am saying to you, Mr Speaker, that, before this meeting proceeds, you must release, as a matter of urgency and now, the legal and procedural advice that you received, because you need to have your eyes wide open to the consequences in law and politics of what you are proposing.

Mr Speaker: The Member's request has been recorded.  Your point of order has been recorded.

Naomi Long: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mike Nesbitt: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Point of order, Mrs Long.

Naomi Long: Thank you, Mr Speaker.  We fully accept — that is why we are here — that your original notice and the original intention to recall the Assembly to hear a statement on behalf of the Executive Office was entirely valid.  However, it is now clear that the deputy First Minister has withdrawn his consent for such a statement to be made.  Does that not therefore invalidate this sitting of the Assembly?  Can you clarify for us the political and procedural consequences of continuing down this road where we have one half of a double-headed Ministry presenting to the Assembly without the consent of the other?

Mr Speaker: I agree with the Member that we are not in an ideal situation.  I understand the frustration of many Members this morning.  I did take the initiative to write to the Executive Office, stating that I would be content to accept a statement from the deputy First Minister.  The deputy First Minister declined that invitation.

Jim Allister: Point of order.

Stewart Dickson: Point of order.

Mike Nesbitt: Point of order.

Mr Speaker: Point of order, Mr Dickson.

Stewart Dickson: Thank you, Mr Speaker.  It is quite clear that the Standing Orders of the Chamber have been stretched to their limit this morning with regard to the ability to hear effectively what is a private Member making a private statement to the House on this matter.  She no longer has the confidence of the deputy First Minister in making this statement, and it is my belief, Mr Speaker, that you need to advise the House under what Standing Order you are allowing this unusual arrangement to proceed, if that is your decision.

Mr Speaker: I am content, Mr Dickson, that I am complying with the requirements of Standing Order 18A.

Jim Allister: Point of order.

Mike Nesbitt: Point of order.

Mr Speaker: Point of order, Mr Nesbitt.

Mike Nesbitt: Mr Speaker, the last 53 minutes have been a disaster for the integrity and reputation of these institutions.  Can I suggest that you call another short adjournment, summon the Whips and see whether we can find a way forward?

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: The Member has his point on the record.

Jim Allister: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.  I do not challenge at all the veracity of your original summonsing of the House faced with the request that you had, but it is quite clear that that request has effectively been revoked.  Hence, I press, for the third time, for a ruling on whether or not you regard as a ministerial statement what it is anticipated we will hear from Mrs Foster.  Are we now going to hear a ministerial statement or are we not?  That goes to the heart of the matter.

Mr Speaker: Mr Allister, having taken the legal and procedural advice this morning, it is clear that my role is in relation to the procedures of the Assembly, not the procedures of the Executive, and that I have discharged my responsibilities under Standing Orders to recall the Assembly.

Jim Allister: Further to that point of order —

Alex Attwood: Further to that point of order —

Mr Speaker: I call the First Minister.

Arlene Foster: Mr Speaker, I am grateful to you for agreeing to recall the Assembly today and permitting me to make —
[Interruption.]
— a statement about my role in the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme.
[Interruption.]
Unlike normal practice on these occasions, which, by the way, you endorsed, I want to make it clear that the statement has not been cleared or approved by the deputy First Minister.  I felt that it was important that I come before the House at the earliest opportunity.  For almost two weeks there has been a barrage of media coverage on this matter, including wild claims and allegations, many of which have been based on spin rather than reality.  This morning, I want to set out the actual facts to the Assembly.  To repeat what I said in media interviews, I want to make it clear that, in order to get to the bottom of the entire issue, I am prepared to waive the normal convention and give evidence to the Public Accounts Committee.
The one issue on which we can all agree is that there were shocking errors and failures in the RHI scheme and a catalogue of mistakes, all of which coincided to create the perfect storm, resulting in the position in which we now find ourselves.  In all of this, it is critical that lessons are learned and that the costs of the scheme are brought under control.  As First Minister, I am determined that that will be done.
Today, I want to cover in some detail the establishment, operation and eventual closure of the scheme.  I want to set out the policy objectives behind the scheme and the flaws in its operation.  I also want to address some of the more common questions that have arisen over the past two weeks and, most importantly, to put to rest some of the myths that have grown up around the scheme.  However, I want to make it clear that the statement will not set out every failing and flaw in the scheme and process, every missed opportunity and every mistaken assumption.  That work has been and will continue to be carried out by the Public Accounts Committee.
Before I move to the chronology of what occurred, I want to say a few words about ministerial accountability.  By convention, Ministers are answerable to the Assembly not only for their actions and decisions but for those of civil servants in their Department, regardless of any personal responsibility for actions or omissions by officials.  In practice, Ministers determine departmental policies and delegate their implementation to officials.  It is the departmental accounting officer — normally the permanent secretary — who is responsible for the stewardship of resources within the Department's control.
While it may have been lost amidst the media hype, I am on record as saying that I entirely accept that I am accountable to the Assembly for the actions of the Department during my tenure as Minister.  I am sorry that the initial scheme did not contain cost control measures and that there were fundamental flaws in its design.  This is the deepest political regret of my time in the House.  As Minister, I accept responsibility for the work of the Department during my time at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI).  Once again, for the avoidance of doubt, I believe that it is right and proper that I answer to the Assembly for my role in the RHI scheme, and not for one moment do I seek to shirk or avoid that responsibility.  But, if we are to learn lessons from the entire experience, it is essential that we know exactly where things went wrong.
The non-domestic RHI scheme was introduced in November 2012.  It supports the UK objective of contributing to the EU-wide target that, by 2020, 20% of energy consumption should be from renewable sources.  The UK's share of the target is 15%, and the plan is to achieve that through a combination of 12% renewable heat and 30% renewable electricity by 2020.  In Northern Ireland, the renewable heat target is 10% by 2020.  The non-domestic scheme incentivises the uptake of renewable heat technologies such as biomass, heat pumps and solar thermal installations.  It provides payments for 20 years based on the heat energy generated.  The level of tariff is dependent on the size and type of technology, and the calculation of the tariff was intended to cover capital costs, operating costs and non-financial hassle costs over the lifetime of the technology.
A domestic RHI scheme was introduced in December 2014.  There was an increase in application numbers during 2015 that escalated quite rapidly to produce the crisis we now face.  Focusing on the incentive for small to medium-sized biomass boilers, the scheme provided a tariff of just over 6p a unit.
Just under £38 million of funding was provided by the Treasury for the Northern Ireland RHI schemes during the five-year period from 2011 to 2016.  However, scheme uptake was initially low in the first few years, with only 409 applications received by the end of 2014, leading to an underspend of around £15 million during the first four years.  The total number of renewable heating installations under the non-domestic scheme had increased to over 2,000 by the time that the scheme was suspended in February 2016.  Current estimates suggest that around 6% of our total heating needs in Northern Ireland are now met through renewable heating technologies.  In addition to the resultant reduction in CO2 emissions, the local Northern Ireland economy is benefiting from the ongoing investment through the RHI schemes.  That investment brings benefits:  job retention and creation in the energy services sector.  I make those points simply to underline the point that, however bad the execution has turned out to be, the aims of the scheme were good and necessary.
One question that has been asked by many people is this:  why did we not simply replicate the Great Britain arrangements in Northern Ireland?  The answer is quite simple:  in Great Britain, the main obstacle to the growth of renewable heat was and is the wide availability of affordable natural gas.  Here, the main heating fuel is oil, and the gas market is relatively immature.  It was even more so in 2012, hence it is clear that simply to import the GB arrangement to the Northern Ireland market at that time would not have been appropriate.
While this statement is not the place to rehearse every failing or flaw in the process, there is one matter that I believe it is important for me to address.  It is the error that goes to the very heart of why the costs of the scheme ran out of control.  The crucial mistake in the scheme was that the tariff for the most commonly used boilers — small to medium biomass — was set at a level higher than the market price of the relevant fuel, which is mainly wood pellets.  In essence, that created an incentive to continue to burn fuel over and above the levels required for the relevant function, whether a commercial business operation or a community facility such as a nursing home or a church.  Of course, the regulations do not provide for payment for wasted heat or heat that has no functional benefit.  However, as the PAC has exposed, a further major failing of the scheme here has been that the necessary aspects of the regulations have not been rigorously enforced.  There clearly should have been more and better inspections of businesses long before the summer of 2016.
At the heart of the RHI story is that the tariff subsidy was higher than the cost of the wood pellets, yet DETI's 2012 business case on the RHI wrongly stated that the tariff was lower.  That crucial misunderstanding informed DETI's attitude to the RHI in subsequent years.  It helps explain why concerns were not taken seriously enough and why action was not taken quickly enough when problems emerged.  With the greatest of respect to those who criticise me for that, I remind them that I did not simply impose the scheme on the people of Northern Ireland.  The tariff was set out in schedule 3 to the legislation, which was scrutinised by the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee and passed after debate by the Northern Ireland Assembly.  Indeed, the Chair of the Committee at the time, Mr Patsy McGlone MLA, said:
"The Committee scrutiny of the development of the renewable heat incentive has been considerable and reflects the importance and long-term nature of the proposals.  Before supporting the RHI, the Committee sought and received assurances on incentive and tariff levels, banding levels, incentives for domestic consumers, payments to participants and support levels for the renewable heat premium payment scheme." — [Official Report (Hansard), Bound Volume 78, p299, col 2].
The unfortunate reality is that no one in government or in the Assembly in their work in creating and passing the legislation picked up on that crucial failing.  Contrary to some accounts, in the early years of the scheme, that was not widely picked up by the industry either.  In fact, as has been stated, when I was the Minister responsible, Northern Ireland was underperforming in that area.  In my years as Minister, there was an underspend on the RHI up to and including my final year at DETI, which was 2014-15.  That is detailed in the Northern Ireland Audit Office report.  Take-up in the scheme's early years was low.  Indeed, as hard as it is to believe now, there was even a publicity campaign in 2014 to encourage more applicants.
The BBC 'Spotlight' programme and subsequent comment has made significant play of a concerned citizen.  I would ask the entire Assembly, if it were here, to join me in thanking that person for all that she did to try to prevent the calamity that we have fallen into.
She deserves our highest respect and a sincere apology on behalf of my former Department, which should not have dismissed her claims with disbelief but examined them with diligence.  It is no exaggeration to say that, had she been listened to on any of the three occasions on which she approached DETI, the crisis would have been avoided.
Unfortunately, it has been difficult to establish the exact facts around contact between the concerned citizen and me and the Department.  When asked by 'Spotlight' about correspondence from the concerned citizen, I replied:
"I passed these concerns on to departmental officials to investigate.  It is now obvious that these investigations should have highlighted the failings of the scheme and ameliorative actions should have been taken."
I made that statement from memory and on advice that appeared to indicate that she had raised her concerns directly with me.  It is my normal practice — indeed, it is the appropriate practice — to pass any concerns received from members of the public to the relevant departmental officials.  However, my response was made without the benefit of having reviewed the concerned citizen's original letter.  It is now clear that the initial communication to me did not raise concerns about the RHI scheme.  I understood from the Department for the Economy officials who have spoken to the person in question that this was the only correspondence sent directly to me.  However, a subsequent email to my private account the following week has now come to light in which there is a reference to concerns about the scheme.
It has also been alleged that I contributed to the problem by putting the introduction of the domestic RHI ahead of cost controls on the non-domestic scheme.  It is quite wrong of anyone to describe this as a smoking gun.  I make no apology at all for having pushed to see the domestic scheme introduced, as it was a totally legitimate and rational decision based on the information available to me at that time.  I did not receive any indication that cost control of the non-domestic scheme was an urgent priority at that time.  The Department for the Economy is seeking to establish the facts as to why the warning signals that had been given, not least those from the concerned citizen, were not escalated in the Department.  It is important that this work progresses to a conclusion as soon as possible.
To sum up, at no time during my period as Minister were any recommendations made to me to introduce cost controls, nor were there any warning signs that spending on the scheme was spiralling out of control.  In fact, during my time in the Department, there was an underspend of the money available to us.
I will now turn to the period after I left the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.  In May 2015, I became Finance Minister and had no role whatsoever in the ETI Minister's decision to amend the RHI scheme.  The then First Minister, Peter Robinson, has also made it clear that he was unaware of the issues around RHI as they had not been brought to him as party leader or as First Minister.  Therefore, at no time did he seek to intervene either.
Let there be no doubt that the decision to amend the RHI scheme was a matter for the ETI Minister.  The timing of the introduction of cost controls was entirely a matter for him.  It has been suggested that my party sought to influence the decision on the timing of the introduction of cost controls.  It has been only in recent days that I have been aware of this allegation, and I have now taken the opportunity to investigate it.  The only person who would have been in a position to instruct the ETI Minister would have been the First Minister at the time.  This has been checked with the then First Minister, who has made it clear that the problems surrounding RHI were never brought to him either as First Minister or as party leader.  He made it clear, therefore, that he could not and did not intervene in any way.
No other Minister took any role in this matter, nor did they make any representations in relation to it.  I can confirm that the DUP party officers took no interest or role in the question of the RHI.  Therefore, regardless of what, if anything, was said in relation to the party's role, no one had any authority to instruct the ETI Minister to do anything.  There is no evidence whatsoever of Mr Bell raising any concerns with the First Minister if he felt that he was being pressurised.  Let me make it absolutely clear:  any suggestion that the Enterprise Minister was instructed to delay the changes to the RHI scheme is totally without foundation.
By way of a submission from John Mills, the then director of DETI's energy division, on 31 December 2015, a recommendation was made to the then Minister to close the RHI scheme because of concerns about an overspend, and the Minister agreed to that proposal.  A subsequent submission from John Mills on 19 January 2016 recommended steps to close the scheme by early to mid-March 2016.
These submissions were based on the assumption that conventional processes of consultation and Committee clearance were required.  The Minister signed off on this submission on Friday 22 January, agreeing to the early to mid-March closure.  However, as a result of concerns, a hold was put on this decision within half an hour.
In late January 2016, complaints about the operation of the RHI scheme were made to me.  I informed the deputy First Minister and I passed them on to the head of the Civil Service.  I was deeply concerned about the proposed mid-March closure date in light of the growing financial pressures, and the Executive agreed on 5 February to a closure around 15 February.  Immediately after the announcement of the early closure of the scheme, concerns were raised about those who had already installed boilers but had not yet applied and would be disadvantaged.
On the basis that cost control measures were now in place, there was a danger of legal challenges to those who had installed boilers but had not yet received authorisation and, with the agreement of senior civil servants, it was decided that the scheme should remain open for a further two weeks.
As the Enterprise Minister at the time highlighted in the Assembly, he took the decision with the agreement of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister.  The extension of the amended scheme was an entirely proper and proportionate step to take in all the circumstances.  Once again, for the record, the scheme was closed earlier than initially approved by the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.
Since the announcement of my decision to make this statement, the former Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has given an interview to the BBC.  In that, he makes a number of allegations about the decision to amend and then subsequently to close the scheme.  I think it is important that I also take this opportunity to put on record the factual position about a number of those allegations.
Mr Bell alleged on several occasions that he took action immediately to introduce cost control measures into the scheme and signed off the submission at the most immediate point he could.  This is untrue.
Today my colleague the Minister for the Economy is placing in the Assembly Library a copy of the submission that was agreed by the former Minister.  It will show that the Minister received a submission on 8 July 2015 recommending the introduction of cost control measures.  It will also indicate that the original proposal from officials was to introduce cost controls from October 1 2015 but was amended to 4 November 2015 and signed off by the Minister on 3 September 2015.  It is apparent from this document that action was not taken immediately but after considerable delay.
Mr Bell further claims that other SPADs became involved in the process who were, and I quote:
"Not allowing the scheme to close".
The fact remains that the Minister signed off a proposal that was to take effect from 4 November 2015.  The only further delay in the introduction of cost control measures was as a result of legal and financial issues being resolved by departmental officials.  This was unconnected to any ministerial decision.  The decision was solely for the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to take.
The former Enterprise Minister claims that he made a decision to amend the RHI scheme but was overruled by special advisers.  Since last week, I have specifically investigated this claim.  The evidence is clear.  The only decision taken by the Minister was in early September to amend the scheme in November.  The Minister was not subsequently overruled by special advisers, and I am clear that whatever representations may have been made by anyone on this issue, it was not being done with the authority of the party.
I understand from Minister Hamilton that the permanent secretary recalls being told at the time that some in the party wanted the scheme to be kept open.  He was unaware of the source of this suggestion, but believes it may have been based on the erroneous but widespread view at the time that because the scheme was funded through annually managed expenditure (AME), it was possible to maximise take-up without creating a problem.
I have checked and confirmed that no Minister made any such request or took any interest in the decision taken in September 2015.  The DUP party officers took no interest in this issue and gave no instructions.  It is, therefore, clear that, whatever the belief, the DUP did not ask the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to extend the scheme.  I also understand that, when the suggestion of a four-week extension was mentioned in the DETI issues meeting on 24 August, the Minister did not voice any objections.  In fact, he endorsed the decision.
The bottom line is that this decision was taken by the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.  No attempt was made to overrule him and no such allegation was made at the time.  In fairness to the Minister, I should say that I understand from Minister Hamilton that departmental officials did not object to a four-week extension.
Mr Bell also claimed that he acted in the way that he did because of what he referred to as "collective responsibility".  This demonstrates a total and fundamental misunderstanding of the convention of collective responsibility.  The doctrine of collective responsibility refers to a convention whereby, once Cabinet takes a decision, all Ministers are expecting to abide by it or resign.  In this case, there was no decision of the Northern Ireland Executive, nor had there ever been any conversation between DUP Ministers, much less a decision, on the matter.  There has been no allegation from Mr Bell that the First Minister Peter Robinson sought to delay the change to the scheme.  Collective responsibility has no bearing whatsoever on this issue.  Indeed, it is clear from Mr Bell's statement on the two-week delay in February that he could robustly defend his role as Minister and would not change his course on the basis of SpAds acting without any ministerial authority or cover.
In discussing the decisions around the autumn of 2015, Mr Bell also claimed that he has a fact that reveals the role of special advisers in the scheme staying open.  He then referred to a conversation he had with the deputy secretary of the Department, claiming his own special adviser had been asked by other special advisers to remove references to "Arlene Foster" and "the Department of Finance and Personnel".  This is the key allegation — that documents were amended — and it is a crucial point.
The truth is very different from that suggested by Mr Bell.  I can set out the simple facts, based on the official records of the Department for the Economy.  First, the only conversation approximating to this version of events took place in February 2016, not in 2015.  Secondly, it relates to paperwork concerning the closure of the scheme in 2016, not the introduction of cost controls in 2015.  Thirdly, the DETI adviser accepts that any changes he made were made of his volition and not at the request of others.
Fourthly, the amendment that was made relates to one draft submission before it was finalised for the Minister to consider, not to any attempt to delete emails or Government records.  Fifthly, the reference that was removed was one that highlighted the role of OFMDFM in wishing to see the scheme close more quickly and without consultation.  The removal of that reference had the effect of avoiding any impression that the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister had been told that he had agreed to a process of closing the scheme that was too slow.
Sixthly, this was a submission for the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister only and did not impact on the document that was being forwarded to the First Minister and deputy First Minister.  Seventhly, and most importantly, the change to the submission had absolutely no effect on anything in the real world; the timing and process for the suspension of the scheme had already been agreed.
Minister Hamilton asked for urgent clarification on that issue from officials, who provided a note setting out the factual position.  That was released to the media last evening, and the Minister has also placed in the Assembly Library copies of the draft submission with the tracked changes marked.  The final version was then approved by the then Minister.
In relation to the closure of the scheme in 2016, Mr Bell has alleged that he wanted to close the scheme immediately.  Once again, let us return to the documentary evidence.  First, let me refer to a submission dated 19 January 2016.  That proposed a closure date of early to mid-March 2016 and was signed off by the then Minister, Mr Bell.  The deputy First Minister and I believed that we should act more quickly, and a further submission was prepared by DETI officials which provided three options.  Minister Hamilton has also left a copy of that submission in the Assembly Library.  In it, officials recommended a longer process to close the scheme over a longer period of time, but it was agreed that it should be closed as quickly as possible.  So even taking into account the issue of the two-week delay that was agreed after the announcement, after all the complex processes the simple truth is that the scheme closed earlier than had initially been proposed by the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister.  The reality is that it was the intervention of OFMDFM that ensured an earlier closure of the scheme than would otherwise have been the case.
To deal briefly with that subsequent two-week delay in the RHI closure, let us remember that it was decided, after cross-party concerns, that the scheme should not close within a fortnight of the announcement.  Members across this House voiced concerns that businesses that had just bought boilers would be left in the lurch.  The two-week extension that Mr Bell then agreed to as Minister was supported by me and the deputy First Minister.  Other parties in this House, of course, wanted it to be longer.  Cost controls were in place for the RHI at that stage, and civil servants were content with the two-week period.
This is not an exhaustive rebuttal of the allegations made by Mr Bell, but I hope it will convey, with documentary evidence, what actually happened.
I also want to make it clear that I support the need for an independent investigation, free from partisan political interference, to establish the facts around the renewable heat incentive scheme.  I believe that the conclusions of any investigation must be made public and that any investigation must be conducted speedily to assist in the process of building public confidence.  I have been working to reach an agreement with officials and others on the precise details of such an investigation over the last number of days, and I hope that it can be resolved in the next few days.
While there will be significant interest in how we came to the present position, the most important issue for us now is to mitigate the costs of the scheme.  Minister Hamilton plans to make a statement to the Assembly as soon as possible in the new year.  The hope and intent is to reduce significantly the cost of the scheme to the Executive's Budget, but the details are still subject to considerable further work.  This matters as we want to be fair to all those who responded to the incentive as it was intended to operate and to ensure that our process completely resolves the widespread abuse of the scheme.
In conclusion, unlike others, my priority in this is not headline grabbing or grandstanding.  My priority, just as it was when I pressed for the earlier closure of the scheme rather than let it run to March, is to ensure that lessons are learned and to reduce the projected cost.
When I became First Minister, I said that I could think of no greater honour than to serve my country and the people of Northern Ireland.  It is not a responsibility that I take lightly.  I am not immune to the considerable anger and frustration that this issue has caused; not only do I understand it, I feel it too.  I share those emotions because I am proud of this place and I want the best for it, and that is why I entered politics.  I did not enter politics to shirk or shy away from difficult decisions.
The record shows that I have always put Northern Ireland first.  The record shows that I have worked hard, throughout my political and ministerial career, to bring more investment and more jobs to Northern Ireland.  The record shows that I have worked hard to keep Northern Ireland moving forward, and I will continue to do so as First Minister.  That is why, rather than whipping up a media storm, I have actually been dealing with the problem along with my ministerial colleague Simon Hamilton and the Finance Minister, working on a practical solution, because that is what responsible politicians do.  That is what government is about.
On a personal note, I want very much to thank each and every member of the public who has called my office at Stormont and, indeed, DUP offices across the length and breadth of Northern Ireland to offer words of support and encouragement.  It really is appreciated.  I will continue to work hard, as I have done throughout my political career, on everyone's behalf, to ensure a better and more stable future for Northern Ireland.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

William Humphrey: I thank the First Minister for the lengthy and comprehensive statement that she has just given to the House.  I ask the First Minister this:  what is her view of those who say that they want facts and clarity around the situation but, when they have the opportunity to listen to those facts, walk out of the Chamber in an irresponsible way and in a media stunt to draw attention and grab headlines for themselves and are more interested in spin and propaganda than getting the truth for the people of Northern Ireland?

Arlene Foster: I just do not know what to say on this matter.  For weeks now, people have been calling for me to come forward and calling on me to go to the PAC.  I said I would go to the PAC; that was not good enough.  I said I would come to the House, set out the facts and take questions from Members of the House, and where are they?  Where are they?  The people of Northern Ireland deserve better than this.  The people of Northern Ireland will look at this today and say, "What is all that about — what is all that about?".
I have listened to people from across Northern Ireland — I have not been hiding away, I have been out and about.  I have been in Upper Bann, South Belfast and my own constituency.  I have been listening very carefully to what people have to say.  They are angry, but they want a plan as to how to deal with this.
I am setting out a plan for how to deal with the matter whilst others seek party political advantage. I regret that.  I regret that deeply.  Others have to answer for themselves.

Sydney Anderson: I thank the First Minister for her detailed statement to the House.  Will she explain why the cost controls in the Great Britain scheme were not replicated in the Northern Ireland scheme?

Arlene Foster: I took the opportunity over the weekend to speak to officials to establish why that is the case, and there are three reasons.  I have to say that none of them is good or very acceptable, because cost controls, as we know now with the benefit of hindsight, should have been in place right from the beginning of the scheme.
First, there was an understanding from the specialist report — the Cambridge Economic Policy Associates (CEPA) report — that the tariff set was lower than the cost of the fuel.  That was the fundamental mistake, as I said in my statement.  The suggested rate for biomass boilers below 100 kW was set initially at 4·5p per kilowatt-hour.  At that rate, the consultants noted, there was no need for tiering, as, at the time, the proposed rate was less than the cost of wood pellets and therefore there was no incentive to use the boiler excessively just to claim the subsidy.
Secondly, there was not the level of demand for the Northern Ireland RHI in the first few years.  In fact, the first application for the scheme was received in January 2013.  Remember that the scheme opened in November 2012.  Over the first four years, there was an underspend of approximately £15 million.  Therefore, it was thought — incorrectly, as it turns out — that the need to introduce cost controls did not arise.
The third issue is around governance.  The governance processes in the Department did not enforce compliance with commitments given when the scheme was approved, including careful review of tariffs and risks.  Cost control was proposed back in the 2013 consultation paper but not acted on.  There was no submission to me saying, "We think that you need to look at cost controls" or, "This has been raised as an issue".  Nothing came to me on that matter.
The cost controls in Great Britain should of course have been replicated in the Northern Ireland scheme.  I am giving you the reasons that were given to me as to why they were not replicated.  They are not good enough, but they are the reasons that were given to me.

Lord Morrow: I, too, thank the First Minister for her very comprehensive statement.  It is most regrettable that those who have barked and shouted the most about the issue, when there was an opportunity for them to learn some facts around it, said, "We are not interested in the facts", and just walked out.  They ran away.  The First Minister is to be congratulated on her comprehensive report.
There has been much speculation as to why cost controls were not introduced when the scheme was established.  Was any advice given to the Minister in 2012 about cost controls?  Indeed, will the First Minister tell us what proposals for cost controls were considered and then rejected by the Minister?

Arlene Foster: Back in 2012, there were no submissions to me on cost controls.  As I indicated in my last answer, cost controls of a sort were set out for comment in the 2013 consultation paper.  It is not unreasonable for a Minister to expect that this document would have been acted on and that I would have been given a submission after the consultation closed.  In fact, there was never a formal submission responding to that part of the consultation.  I then went on to look at the introduction of the domestic scheme, but that is not a good enough reason for not bringing me a proposal or recommendation on the non-domestic scheme.  One should have been brought, especially given that, by that stage, the concerned citizen had been in.  She had spoken to officials on a number of occasions, yet they still did not think that it was the right thing to do to send me a submission on the issues.  I deeply regret that that was the case.

Christopher Stalford: I thank the First Minister for the statement that she made.  In the precursor to it, several Members raised points of order and the issue of undermining the credibility of the House.  Does the First Minister agree with me that what undermines the credibility of the House is when its elected Members run away from fulfilling their function of answering questions in this place and instead choosing to do so in TV studios?

Arlene Foster: Of course it undermines this place when Members do not stay here to ask the appropriate questions but instead go outside and indulge in media spin.  Unfortunately, this is not the first time that some Members have done that: we all remember the Ulster Unionist Party's stunt when I was appointed after the election.  They said that they were going out of the Executive, and it was "Bring it on" and all that stuff.  What was it?  "Let battle begin", was that it?  That was when they decided not to go into the Executive.  They ran away then, and, of course, they ran away before that over the Fresh Start talks when they decided not to engage in that either.  This is not new; it is a pattern.  I do not think that they serve their constituents well: they do not.  If they want to challenge me, the place to challenge me is in the House, but instead they will stay out.  They will come this afternoon and put down an exclusion motion even though they have not been here to question me on the issues.  They will come here with an exclusion motion even before the PAC has finished its investigation.  They have made up their mind about the First Minister of Northern Ireland, but, thankfully, the electorate has also made up its mind about the First Minister of Northern Ireland.

Pam Cameron: I thank the First Minister for a comprehensive statement to the House this morning.  It is obvious from this morning's events that there are many Members who should be in the Chamber who do not want this devolved Government to be in any way successful or to do their job in the rightful way, and that has been shown.
The 'News Letter' published a story this morning about the regulatory impact assessment.  On what basis did the Minister sign off on the regulatory impact assessment, and should it not have been apparent that there was a fatal flaw at the heart of the scheme?

Arlene Foster: I thank the Member for her question.  It is an important question, and I am glad that she has asked it.  First, let me say that our opponents told us that today was an important day but then could not be bothered to show up.  They cannot be bothered to show up and ask me questions about the sorts of things that the Member has asked me about.
In the regulatory impact assessment, the Department recognised that setting incorrect support payment levels to the RHI tariff posed the most obvious risk to the Northern Ireland scheme.  If the level was set too high, those installing renewable heat would be oversubsidised and less heat would be delivered per pound than would be under more optimal subsidy levels; alternatively, if the rate was set too low, renewable heat would not be deployed to the extent expected.  In that document, it was made clear that there were to be regular planned reviews of subsidy levels after a number of years of experience with the subsidy.  That would, of course, have provided the opportunity to amend tariffs if needed and ensure that they remained appropriate, given the potential changing market conditions.  Of course, the market changes, and we saw that in the prices of wood pellets, oil and gas.
In that RIA, it was proposed that the first review would begin in January 2014, with any changes needed to be made by 1 April 2015.  The review did not happen.  Departmental officials did not carry out that review.  As Minister, I have the right to expect that risks identified in an RIA would be managed by officials.  As the accounting officer has explained at length to the Public Accounts Committee, several important commitments were made at the time when the RHI was approved, not least on risk management, that were not followed through.  Those omissions by officials contributed materially to the very serious problem we now face.  That is already under investigation in the fact-finding work that has been discussed with the PAC, and I look forward to the outworkings of the PAC.  As I have already said on the record, I am more than happy to go to the PAC, even though that is not the convention.  The reason I am happy to go to the PAC is that I have nothing to hide in the matter — absolutely nothing.  I am putting everything out there and am calling for an inquiry if we can get it arranged with colleagues.  I have nothing to hide, so why would other Members table a motion to exclude me?  It is all party politics, and this party will not be part of it.

Nelson McCausland: I thank the First Minister for her statement and the answers to the questions.  They bring a great deal of clarity and dispel a lot of the confusion that folk have generated from other quarters on the matter.
Has the First Minister been able to ascertain or establish who was responsible for the assumption that cost controls were not necessary as they thought that the market price of wood pellets was higher than the tariff?

Arlene Foster: I thank the Member for his question.  It appears to have been a mistake that was made by DETI officials.  The initial report from the consultants, CEPA, suggested that the rate for biomass boilers below 100 kW was set at 4·5p per kilowatt-hour based on a 20 kW biomass boiler reference case.  At that rate, the consultants noted that there was no need for tiering because, at that time, the proposed rate was less than the cost of wood pellets, and, therefore, there would be no incentive to use the boilers excessively just to claim the subsidy.
The consultants were then asked to reconsider the rates following feedback from the industry after the consultation process, and, in February 2012, the consultants produced a new paper that increased the rates to account for a larger reference case boiler of 50 kW rather than the original 20 kW reference case.  The rate proposed for biomass boilers of less than 100 kW was increased in this paper to 5·9p per kilowatt-hour, but there was no mention — no mention — of the need for tiering or that this was not in excess of the cost of wood pellets.  So, the final business case approved by DFP in mid-2012 included a 5·9p tariff, which has subsequently been increased with inflation to 6·4p per kilowatt-hour.
The Department's business case to DFP stated that there was no need to consider tiering because the rate proposed was lower than the cost of fuel, and, therefore, there would be no incentive to abuse the system by generating heat just to claim the subsidy.  However, in the case of biomass boilers, this was simply not true.  In fact, the cost of wood pellets was shown in the same business case as being 4·39p per kilowatt-hour compared with the proposed tariff.  It was there in black and white that the proposed tariff for the wood pellets was 6·4p per kilowatt.  Nobody in DETI, CEPA or DFP spotted that that was the case, and, therein, lies the fundamental problem.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions on the statement.  The Business Committee has agreed to suspend the sitting for one hour following the conclusion of questions on the statement.  I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 1.00 pm.  The next item of business when we return will be the motion under section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act.
The sitting was suspended at 12.07 pm.
On resuming —

Assembly Business

Exclusion of Minister from Office under Section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998

Mr Speaker: The next item of business is a motion signed by 30 Members under section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in relation to the exclusion of the First Minister from office.  The motion for exclusion of a Minister under section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 must relate to the specific terms of that section.  Any amendments that take the motion outside of those terms will be inadmissible.  I have received legal advice from officials that the amendment proposed by Sinn Féin was incompatible with the requirements of section 30 of the 1998 Act and, as such, was inadmissible.
The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to three hours for the debate.  The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech.  The First Minister will have 30 minutes, and all other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.  At the start of the debate, I want to note that the motion has attracted the signatures of a wide range of parties.  Whilst there is a three-hour time limit to the debate, I want to make Members aware that I intend to use my discretion to ensure that as many Members as is possible are heard from each party represented in the House.  I advise Members that the vote on the motion will be on a cross-community basis.

Colum Eastwood: I beg to move
That this Assembly, in accordance with section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, resolves that the First Minister no longer enjoys the confidence of the Assembly and that she be excluded from holding office as a Minister or junior Minister for a period of six months because of her failure to observe the terms of paragraph (g) of the Pledge of Office and the first paragraph of the ministerial code of conduct, in that she failed to observe the highest standards of propriety and regularity in relation to the stewardship of public funds surrounding the renewable heat incentive scheme.
The SDLP brings this motion before the House in the full awareness of just how serious a moment this is for our local politics.  As we attempt to claw back the £400 million and more that may be lost to our local taxpayers, let us also act to claw back the fading threads of confidence in these institutions.  As we draw towards the end of 2016, let us today act to redeem and restore some faith in the public service, because the common and the collective good remains worth fighting for.  In that context, the SDLP very much welcomes the cross-party support the motion has received.  There is a reason for that unity, and the DUP Members of the House would do well to take heed of it.
Since entering into public life as a councillor and as an MLA, I have never seen our public more engaged and angry about a single issue.  I would hazard a guess that, as each of us walked around the streets of our constituencies this weekend, MLAs from across the Chamber were hearing that same disgust.  Our community is united in anger.  Let it be recognised here today that it is an anger that the public have every right to hold.

Paul Givan: Will the Member give way?

Colum Eastwood: No.
The last number of months —
[Interruption.]
The last number of months has seen a damaging pattern to our politics:  the cloud hanging over the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) deal; the inaction on Brexit; the structure of the social investment fund (SIF); and the continued funding and appeasement of a UDA boss.  Amongst the many uncertainties of this last political period, there is one thing we can all say for sure:  there is no fresh start here.
The scandal of the non-domestic renewable heating scheme is by far the biggest imprint on that damaging pattern.  This is the biggest public finance scandal ever to hit these institutions.  As this scandal has unfolded, it has suited some to try to muddy the waters, but we must not be distracted.  This scandal must not be reduced to a psychodrama between the Member from Strangford and the now First Minister.  It must not be reduced to being about just a falling out between former friends or revised to tell only a story of a split in one political party.  It is so much bigger than that.
So far, digging into this scandal has uncovered staggering incompetence.  Digging deeper has the potential to uncover corruption.  Therefore, let us be precise and forensic about the information that is still left unanswered.
The best place to start is always at the beginning, and whether the First Minister likes it or not, this scandal begins with her.  The RHI scheme was deliberately changed from the GB model.  The question still remains as to why that happened.  When the scheme was drawn up in Northern Ireland, why were some of the GB regulations copied and included and why were some not?  In particular, why was section 9 of the GB regulations not included, a section that would have established cost controls for the entire scheme?  Did the First Minister advise or take advice on the inclusion of such cost controls?
Move on to personal warnings received by the First Minister.  We have now lost count of how many times the account and response of the DUP to the whistle-blower has changed.  This morning's revelations add to the impression that the First Minister was aware of a lot more than the jot and tittle of this scheme.  Did she deal with other whistle-blowers in precisely the same fashion as she dealt with this lady?
Move forward to 2015.  When will we get the names of the 984 applicants to this scheme between September and November 2015?  Did the First Minister advocate for the scheme and on what scale?  The same question applies to her party colleagues and their staff.  When did Mr Stephen Brimstone make his application?
Move on to the role of special advisers.  Under what direction and under whose control do DUP special advisers work?  Are DUP politicians collectively responsible to DUP special advisers, or is it the other way round?  In addition to departmental files, will the DUP publish all its internal correspondence regarding the RHI scheme?
The questions are many and detailed.  For two weeks now, confusion has been met with contradiction.  My party is clear that it will now require a full, public, judge-led inquiry to get to the full truth.  It is only right and reasonable, therefore, that the First Minister, having failed to take the opportunity to step aside, is excluded from office whilst this investigation takes place.  Let it be in the hands of the person tasked with leading the public inquiry to determine whether the First Minister is fit to resume office.
I note that the Member for Strangford has been removed from his position by the DUP pending an investigation.  Surely the First Minister should follow the same logic and accept the same fate.  The continuation in office will further bring deadlock to an already failing Executive.
Today, Members were expecting to scrutinise the draft Budget from the Finance Minister, yet we meet to discuss the career of one individual.  During the week, there was confusion about whether an Executive Office press release was actually a DUP press release.  Today, we are informed that the First Minister is speaking without the authority of her joint office.  All of this is because the DUP leader will not do the decent and dignified thing and step aside.  We cannot go on like this.
The longer that the First Minister clings on, the more that her credibility will fade.  Let me assure the First Minister that Christmas will not save her.
Let me now turn briefly to the First Minister's coalition partner, which, given its position, will play an important role in today's proceedings.  I welcome that Sinn Féin has moved on to similar ground as the opposition parties.  I acknowledge that it has come a distance over the past two weeks and has struggled to come to a position.  I genuinely urge Sinn Féin Members, having travelled this far, to come a little further.  Let them now support our motion and exclude the First Minister until a full investigation takes place.  In doing so, let them follow the advice of someone whom they might respect, who spoke not so long ago on a similar scandal.  He said:
"People have seen through this because citizens are not stupid.  They have seen through the patronising responses and insulting remarks.  The actions of the Government in this Chamber in failing to be straight with the Opposition or with citizens is damaging faith in the political system."
He goes on to say that a credible Government cannot continue to:
"evade questions and duck and dodge their responsibilities",
which:
"merely expose this Government's arrogance and incompetence."
Those are the words of Mr Gerry Adams supporting a motion of no confidence in the Dáil in 2014.  They would be wise to avoid a partition in their principles.
Mr Speaker, 2016 has been a strange and serious year for politics.  Even those who tune in to current affairs only occasionally will have noticed a change in its frequency and tone.  If 2016 has been a bad year for losing musical greats, it has been an even worse year for politics.  Too often in the past year, public service has been opportunistically downgraded and demeaned in the mind of the public.  As we face into 2017, let us begin to change that narrative.  First Minister, redeem some faith in the notion that public service is beyond the selfish needs of any one individual.  Redeem some faith in these institutions and restore some dignity in your office and in our politics.  Think beyond yourself and beyond your party.  First Minister, step aside now.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Arlene Foster: It is good to see people back in their places.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Arlene Foster: Of course, they will deal not with the facts of the RHI scheme but with a totally doomed motion.  It is doomed because of what votes they need, and I will come to that in a minute.
I am proud to say that I serve this country as First Minister not at the pleasure of my political opponents but because of the mandate from the people of Northern Ireland in an election less than eight months ago.  I am delighted to say that, in this country at least, it is still the people and not the politicians who get to decide who should be in office.  It is certainly not the responsibility of those politicians who were soundly rejected at the polls such a short time ago to decide who should hold the highest ministerial office, however much they wish to do so.
The RHI debacle deserves to be fully investigated and understood, and that is what will happen.  We need to know exactly what went wrong and how we are going to fix it.  What does not serve the people of Northern Ireland well is people seeking to score cheap political points.  I know that Christmas is coming, but the attempt to turn the issue into a political pantomime is a diversion and a distraction from the important work that is going on.  This motion turns what has been a very serious issue into low farce.  It is a kamikaze motion with no prospect of success, and the signatories to it know that.  It will not shine any light on the truth, nor does it seek to find solutions.  Instead, it will cruelly expose the impotence of those parties that shirk their responsibilities rather than face up to the difficult choices that a Government face.  The motion exposes and confirms what has already been clear over the past few weeks:  that this is nothing short of an attempt at a constitutional coup d'état.  I have to say that it is a coup d'état more worthy of a 'Carry On' film.
I know that, if the election had been held amongst just newspaper pundits and elements in the BBC, this party would not be where it is today.  If they had their way, a few of us would be scattered across the Back Benches — probably sitting where Mr Allister and Mr Agnew are today, though perhaps with a few more seats — but it is the people and not the media who decide.
What people want is to get the problem sorted, not more arguing, bickering and stunts of walking out when they could have heard the facts from politicians here at Stormont.  They want to know what our priority is to reduce projected costs — not claw back but reduce those costs — not to claim a political scalp.  That is what this is all about:  trying to claim a political scalp.  I am here.  I will stay here to fulfil the trust that has been placed in me and to make sure that the whole mess is being cleared up.  That is what my priority is in all this.  I deeply regret the fact that the scheme was flawed from the outset.  I regret the fact that it has placed a projected burden on our public finances, which we now seek to bring under control, but I totally and absolutely reject any notion that I have ever done anything other than act with the highest levels of integrity from the start of the process.
As should be the process, I have made a statement to the Chamber and laid down the facts of the scheme.  My opponents were so interested that they walked out.  So confident were they in their arguments that they could not be bothered to attend the debate or to ask me a question — just one question — on the record.  They are very brave in front of a camera but cowards in the Chamber.
[Interruption.]
That is because they are not interested in a discussion let alone a debate:  all that they are interested in is political distraction.  You know why they want a distraction.  You know why they are desperate for a political distraction.  It is because they have no purpose.  They have no plan or policies for Northern Ireland, unlike the DUP, which has a plan to create more jobs by bringing in more business investment and to ensure that we get the best deal for Northern Ireland.
[Interruption.]
Unlike the DUP, they have no plan to strengthen our schools and hospitals.  We do, and we are not going to be distracted by these games.
My political life is about bringing people together.  I am proud to see that I have done it again today by getting the UUP, the SDLP and Sinn Féin to work together.  It shows what they can achieve when they put their selfish interest first.  Imagine what could be achieved if they put the people of Northern Ireland first.  Imagine what this Chamber could achieve if they harnessed that energy and made the people of Northern Ireland their priority instead of themselves.  I will always put the people of Northern Ireland first.  I am proud to do so.
What I want to do this afternoon, however, is to analyse the motion before us, to consider the statutory provisions on which it is based, to respond to the central allegations, to consider the role of the media in all this and, finally, to make it clear that this party will use the mandate of last May to defeat the motion.  The motion is, of course, premature.  It is inappropriate and has no evidence to justify it.  Above all else, the one aspect of the motion that most cruelly exposes the motivation of those who have sought it is the timing.  No one could possibly conclude that all the evidence has been weighed and considered and that action should follow.  What we have here is trial by television, not by the appropriate authorities.  What we have here are facts being disregarded in a fevered quest to build my political gallows.  What we have here is nothing more than shameful political opportunism.  The central charges against me in the debate today have not even been considered by the PAC, or any independent investigation for that matter, let alone decided on.  This rush to judgement not only exposes the political motivations of my opponents but raises serious questions about the fitness of those who sit on the PAC to be impartial.  The debate is a fact-free zone.  There is no evidence, no adverse findings and nothing that could even resemble a basis for the motion being tabled, never mind passed.
Until very recently, there were constant calls from across the political spectrum for me to give evidence to the PAC.  It almost seemed like every news outlet, bulletin and press release featured that demand.  I would not be surprised if Donald Trump even tweeted it.  Well, guess what?  I am ready and willing to go to the PAC.  I have made that very clear.  Suddenly, by magic, that is not good enough for Mike, Colum and Naomi; they want me out before I get near the PAC and before I am asked one single question or even open my mouth.  So much for due process.  So much for justice.  So much for the facts.  I ask this question in all sincerity of those who tabled the motion:  would you tolerate for one second action being taken against a constituent on the basis of utterly unsubstantiated allegations?  I sincerely hope that you would not, and I expect that your constituent would feel the same.
There are basic rules in the Assembly that my critics are trying to flout — rules at the heart of power-sharing.  MLAs designated as nationalist or other cannot gang up and kick out the elected leader of unionism.  Those rules work the other way, too.  How many sermons on power-sharing have we heard over the years from the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party?

Naomi Long: You drove a coach and horses through it today.

Arlene Foster: Yet, here they are trying to bring back majority rule.  I am sure that Mrs Long will get her chance to speak, as she always does.
Perhaps none of this should come as a surprise.  When I look around the Chamber at those who have supported the motion, all I can see are individuals hungry for publicity and profile, jockeying for position as they desperately seek the media spotlight.  I see Mr Eastwood and his party searching for political relevance after losing more seats at the election and opting out of government.  I see Mr Nesbitt, the man who led the Ulster Unionist Party to its worst result in over 100 years, fighting for revenge against the party that humiliated him and defied his prediction at the polls.  No matter what Mr Nesbitt says, let me say one thing:  I will not be asking him to step aside as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party.
[Interruption.]
The SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party chose to go into opposition, and that is entirely a matter for them.  I do not object to it; I am just grateful that they are not very good at it.
Then, of course, there is Naomi Long of the Alliance Party.  In the past, for the most part, the Alliance Party behaved in a more considered and responsible way than this, but, of course, that was under a different leader.  No doubt, we will hear at some point today that this decision is related to the flags protest —

David Ford: Will the Minister give way?

Arlene Foster: No, I will not.
— or to costing her party a place in the Executive last May.
Then, of course, there is Mr Allister.  Well, in fairness to Mr Allister, there has never been an exclusion motion that he was not prepared to sign, so we can let him off this time.
I turn now to the detail of the motion.  It is an exclusion motion in accordance with section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.  This is the most severe power on the statute book for dealing with political parties or Ministers.  Section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act was introduced as a way of dealing with those who were linked to ongoing paramilitary and criminal activity after the Belfast Agreement but were otherwise legally entitled to a place in government.  Indeed, in 2003, the provision was bolstered by a power to exclude for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, following a report from the IMC.  This provision has never been regarded as a substitute for the normal accountability arrangements of Ministers to the electorate or to the Assembly; it was intended as a long stop when the normal processes did not or could not work.
At Westminster, when the House of Commons passes a vote of no confidence in the Government, the convention is that it will precipitate a general election.  When the House loses confidence in a Minister, the expectation is that the Minister will resign.  Nowhere in the Northern Ireland Act are there powers of exclusion, for the very reason that the Northern Ireland powers were drafted to deal with the particular circumstances of the links between political parties and the paramilitary groups at the time of the Belfast Agreement.
Members on this side of the House will recall that, when the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP had the power to exclude Sinn Féin when IRA activity continued in the first term of the Assembly, they sat on their hands and did nothing.  On any proper analysis, section 30 is appropriate only where there is a proven link to paramilitary or criminal activity, or where there is wrongdoing on the part of Ministers and the normal democratic processes do not suffice.  It is not for MLAs to arrogate to themselves the role of appeal chamber to decisions of the electorate.
Absent some allegation of corruption, fraud or criminal activity, even the outrageous and outlandish allegations of the Opposition fall far short of what would justify a proper use of section 30.  Even the use of section 30 represents a massive overreach by those who have tabled it.  The fact that it has been tabled before the PAC or any other body has investigated the matter, never mind reached any conclusions or recommendations, make it an even more inappropriate device for this debate.  Section 30 was not drafted for these circumstances, but the real truth for those who tabled the motion is that it is a motion designed to fail.
I turn now to the charges that have been made in this debate and in the motion on the Order Paper.  The allegation is that I:
"failed to observe the highest standards of propriety and regularity in relation to the stewardship of public funds surrounding the renewable heat incentive scheme."
One can only assume that this relates to the period when I was Minister responsible for the RHI scheme and not some guilt by association with what happened when I left the Department.  We should be absolutely clear that the charge that is being made is not that I made some error of judgement in relation to the policy.  The charge that has been made today is that I did not observe the highest standards of propriety and regularity.  This is a remarkably serious and grave allegation to make.  It is one that implies not merely an error of judgement but some malign intent or involvement.  Of course, there is not a scintilla of evidence to justify such a charge.  This claim goes far beyond any allegations made by the BBC, or even by Mr Bell for that matter, about my conduct as Minister for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.
When it is published in full, the record will show that, at all points, I followed the professional advice of the officials, the experts and the consultants.  I approved the recommendations that were made to me.

Roy Beggs: Will the Minister give way?

Arlene Foster: No.
I referred the correspondence of the concerned citizen to my departmental officials.  At no point was any recommendation made to me to introduce cost control measures.  In fact, far from it; I was being told that we needed to increase, not decrease, the take-up of the scheme.  Although the Opposition do not want to hear it — they clearly did not want to hear it or they would have been in the Chamber earlier — the simple fact remains that at no time during my tenure in the Department was I warned that there could be an overspend.  As Minister, I, of course, accept responsibility for the work of the Department, but the charge that I did not observe the highest standards of propriety and regularity is completely and totally baseless.  If I am to be blamed for anything, it is accepting the professional advice that I was offered.
However, in this regard, I am not alone.  I did not introduce this scheme as an unilateral ministerial decision.  I brought proposals for this scheme to the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee to be considered and scrutinised.  It did not simply nod through the regulations but, as the Chairman, Mr Patsy McGlone, told us, and it bears repeating:
"The Committee scrutiny of the development of the renewable heat incentive has been considerable and reflects the importance and long-term nature of the proposals.  Before supporting the RHI, the Committee sought and received assurances on incentive and tariff levels, banding levels, incentives for domestic consumers, payments to participants and support levels for the renewable heat premium payment scheme." — [Official Report (Hansard), Bound Volume 78, p299, col 2].
In fact, as it was recorded at the time, the introduction of the regulations was delayed because the Committee took so long to scrutinise the scheme.  Lest anyone thinks that concerns were raised that the tariff was too high, exactly the opposite was the case, as was so eloquently highlighted by Mr McGlone, who said:
"Some concerns have been expressed that the tariffs for the renewable heat incentive are lower than those in Britain because the tariff is generated against a counterfactual position of heating oil." — [Official Report (Hansard), Bound Volume 78, p299, col 1].
If there were errors on my part, they were errors that were specifically endorsed by the Committee after "considerable" scrutiny.  Indeed, not only did the Committee consider and approve this scheme, but so too did the entire Assembly.  In fact, one of the other signatories of today's motion, Mrs Overend, gave her specific support to the scheme and said:
"Having had the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations in Committee, I am happy to support the Minister in bringing them forward."
So she too accepts that she had scrutinised the regulations that contained the vital flaw in the scheme.  She also went on to address the issue of why we opted for a Northern Ireland-specific scheme and not the GB scheme.  She said:
"Given that there are differences between renewable heat markets in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it was important that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment undertook its own research and economic appraisal of the situation here.  That research, followed by a public consultation, has undoubtedly been invaluable in informing decision-makers on the best way forward for a renewable heat incentive scheme for Northern Ireland." — [Official Report (Hansard), Bound Volume 78, p300, col 1].
In fairness to Mrs Overend and Mr McGlone, they were not alone.  Everyone who spoke in the debate supported the regulations.  There was not a single voice in opposition.  Today, this motion is seeking to exclude me from office for a policy and a scheme that received not just Committee support but the unanimous support of the Assembly.  This morning, I dealt with the issue of the concerned citizen.  I do not intend to repeat that now, but I followed the appropriate steps in passing it to officials.  In short, the motion seeks to castigate me for a scheme that was not just based on following the advice of officials but received the unanimous support of the Committee, after detailed scrutiny, and the endorsement of the Assembly.
As I said, it amounts to nothing more than a 'Carry On' coup d'état.
None of the other allegations made in recent days relate to my period as ETI Minister, nor are they particularly germane today.  However, I want to reiterate the fact that I had no role whatever in the decision of the ETI Minister to introduce cost controls to the scheme in 2015.  My involvement and that of the deputy First Minister in 2016 was to bring forward the closure of the scheme, not to delay it.  The publication by the Department for the Economy of the note for the record of the allegations concerning claims made about the leaking of government records speaks for itself.
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the motion.  For almost two weeks, I have listened daily to lies presented as facts, the truth distorted out of all recognition and a public narrative created and relentlessly pursued that bears no relationship to reality.  Now, I am not surprised that the Opposition, in their desperation, seek to exploit the situation for cynical political reasons, but I expect better of publicly funded broadcasters who fail to present the facts in a fair and impartial way.  Unfortunately, that has not been the case.  From the start of this process, I have not sought to hide from my responsibilities, the House or even the media.  I have been out and about, fulfilling my engagements and meeting people from all walks of life who have offered me warm words of encouragement and support.  I made a full and detailed statement this morning; I gave a lengthy interview to the BBC last week; and here I am, this afternoon, responding to the debate.
This does not elevate our political process.  It does nothing to solve the many problems and challenges that we face.  It reduces our politics to a soap opera and the conduct of the House to little better than a television drama — and not a very believable one at that.  Our people deserve better.  Last May, I asked the people of Northern Ireland for a mandate: I got it.  I do not intend to run away from my responsibilities.  After this speech, I will have further meetings about how we find solutions, while others will talk to a meaningless motion in the House and, no doubt, will get coverage on the news tonight.  I hope they enjoy it, because — do you know what? — their credibility will not be helped one iota by what goes on here today.  However we got into this position I will make sure that we put it right.  It is time for solutions, not for the nonsense we are about to hear from the Opposition.  As I said this morning, we will implement a plan; we will get the costs down —

Mike Nesbitt: What is the plan?

Arlene Foster: We will have a full, independent investigation — if you had been here this morning, you would have heard it.
[Interruption.]
We will have —

Mr Speaker: Order, Members.  Order.

Christopher Stalford: All talk, no action.  You ran away.

Arlene Foster: Not for the first time.
We will get the costs down.  We will have a full, independent investigation of where all this went wrong.  Today, using the mandate we earned last May, we will defeat the motion.
Let me conclude by saying that I remain as committed today as I was on the day that I was elected First Minister to fight the good fight, finish the race and keep the faith.

Peter Weir: When an exclusion motion or vote of no confidence is put before the House, the debate is essentially about leadership.  To my mind, the test of leadership is not whether we have a perfect society in which problems do not arise and mistakes are not made; the test of true leadership is in dealing with those problems, in facing up to responsibilities when problems arise and in finding solutions.
Today, the Assembly had two different routes that it could take.  There were two pieces of business on the Order Paper.  The first came from the First Minister.  Her statement detailed the facts of how we got to where we are on the RHI.  It outlined support for a fully independent inquiry.  Indeed, let me make this clear in case there is any degree of confusion:  it is not a DUP or a Sinn Féin inquiry.  We support an entirely independent inquiry that will bring its own verdict on events so far and, most importantly, because this is what the electorate is looking for, identify potential actions to reduce the cost as we move ahead and remove the burden from future taxpayers.  We saw the first steps —

Roy Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Peter Weir: No.  The Member will have his chance.  Indeed, the Member had the chance to question the First Minister earlier but abrogated that responsibility.
The First Minister took the responsible leadership role today by outlining that.  People want to see a process in which the costs are reduced so that they are not a burden in the future.  By contrast, the position taken by the opposition parties is a politically motivated stunt targeted at an individual.  It offers no solutions as to how we move forward.  The motion does not even reference an inquiry.
What we have seen over the past couple of weeks from the Opposition is an opportunistic and cynically driven approach to the issue.  We have heard numerous members of the Opposition writing off the £400 million as if it has already been spent.  They have dealt with the issue with a level of glee that shows that they hoped that it was a much greater figure, because that would cause a greater degree of political difficulty.  It is a case of basking entirely in hindsight.  As has been highlighted, throughout all the consultations and in all the debates in the Assembly and the Committee structures, not a single voice from the main opposition parties said, "Hold on a moment.  This has been got wrong.  We need to put a cap on this.  We need to bring this to a swifter conclusion".  On the contrary, when the RHI scheme was brought to a close earlier this year, the opposition parties trooped in one by one to oppose its closure, complaining about the impact that that would have on jobs and the local economy.  They did not want to close it; rather, they wanted it extended.
At the heart of this is the issue of the election.  We have been told recently, "Vote Mike, get Colum" or, "Vote Colum, get Mike".  Let me make it very clear —
[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order, Members.

Peter Weir: That shows the kind of mature attitude that is being taken here.
People had the opportunity this year to vote Mike and get Colum or vote Colum and get Mike.  That is possibly the most unattractive two-for-one offer that has ever been made in the history of marketing.
[Laughter.]
People said no.  I give the leader of the SDLP some praise for what he has done on this issue.  He has at least moved on.  Some time ago, he was carrying the coffin of a dissident terrorist.  He has now moved on to carrying the Ulster Unionist Party on his back, which has trooped in loyally behind him.
We are not going to have trial by television and radio.  We are not going to have trial by innuendo and smear, trial by revenge or trial by jealousy.  On the matter of prejudging the issues, members of the Public Accounts Committee, who are supposed to give an objective view on this, have already decided that they have given their objective view.  They have produced a verdict before it is reached.
I have known Arlene Foster since she was 18.  I am probably the person in the Chamber who —

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Peter Weir: — has known her the longest.  She is a person of integrity, ability and conviction.  She will carry on.  She will lead for unionism in Northern Ireland.  She is not a Mike-come-lately.

Gordon Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Peter Weir: I am happy to give way.

Gordon Lyons: I am happy to give the Member an extra minute.
[Laughter.]
Will the Member please continue?

Peter Weir: It is the case that —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Peter Weir: OK.  I urge Members to reject the motion before us and to deal with the issues.

Jim Allister: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.  Is it not the rule of the House that any intervention after the five-minute period is null and void?

Mr Speaker: Your comments have been recorded, Mr Allister.

Conor Murphy: It is slightly embarrassing that we have this unedifying shambles taking place.  It is not just about the revelations around a scheme that was very badly conceived and handled.  Even if a good scheme can be put together to try to reduce that, it has already cost a substantial amount to the public purse.  That was compounded by the television programme in which the First Minister and a former senior Minister in her Executive hurled accusations at each other.  There were revelations and accusations around special advisers and the role that they played in the scheme.
Last night, then, we got on to the selective release of papers from the Department for the Economy by the Minister, involving civil servants in an internal DUP squabble as to who was right and who was wrong.  Those issues are now being refuted by the former Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.  Then we had this morning's behaviour, when the joint nature of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister was challenged and, in trying to allow business to go ahead, the Office of the Speaker was significantly challenged.  All of this has been a very unedifying spectacle, which has added to public disquiet about the handling of the RHI scheme and the revelations and allegations around it.  I have to say to the party on the opposite Benches that, as it continues, it may well circle the wagons thinking that that is the best method of defence.  However, when you are in a hole, you need to stop digging.
None of this — the circling of the wagons or the robust defence — answers the questions that the public want answered.  It does not deal with the broad range of issues that the public want answers on, and neither does this motion.  By its proposer's admission, it is about the career of one individual:  I think that I have quoted him correctly when I say that.  This is about the career of one individual.  If only this was about the career of one individual, it would, perhaps, be much easier to deal with.  The reality is that this is about much more than the career of one individual.  The motion does not deal with the investigation that is required, nor does it analyse the role of civil servants in relation to the matter.  It does not deal with the former Minister, Jonathan Bell, and the allegations that he has made, and it does not deal with the role of the First Minister in relation to that and that of the special advisers who, it is alleged, were improperly involved in extending the length of the scheme when there was advice that it should have been closed down.  The motion does not deal, as the proposer quite rightly said, with the applicants and the need to understand who benefited from the scheme.  That will also cast up some answers about the operation of the scheme.
What we need is a proposition to the Assembly that deals with all those things and is not about a short-term fix or a quick headbutt for somebody followed by a walkout, saying that we have done our job, but a proposition that deals with the issues and with the very necessary and robust proposition to put a scheme in place that undoes the financial catastrophe that the RHI scheme has foisted on our public finances.  This motion does not do anything for that.  We asked the proposers and seconders of the motion to put it to one side and join the motion that we have submitted for the new year, which is not just about the career of one individual but which deals with the entirety of what needs to be examined and the fact that we need to get to the bottom of it all.
Unfortunately, it seems that a day in the sun, or in the spotlight, is more important than getting to the heart of these issues.

Sinead Bradley: Will the Member give way?

Conor Murphy: I am very happy to give way.

Sinead Bradley: Does the Member accept that the motion, which I ask him to speak to, is the first step in looking at where that £400 million went, where it is agreed to go and what the principles are behind it?
[Interruption.]
The tone of this debate is not fitting given that the public are rightly angry.  The debate so far is an absolute disgrace to the House.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Conor Murphy: In fairness, in answer to the Member, it is not the first step; it is actually the last step.  The public want to see a proper investigation into the entirety of the issue, not the career of one individual.  The motion does not deal at all with such an investigation, nor does it deal with financial recovery or the broad range of people whom I mentioned, including the First Minister in her role, the former ETI Minister, the DUP special advisers and the civil servants.  It does not deal with any of that.

Colum Eastwood: I thank the Member very much for giving way.  He and his party had every opportunity to put down an amendment to the motion, but you put one down that could not possibly be accepted.  Who is playing stunt politics?  There was an opportunity to put all those things into the motion but you missed your opportunity.

Conor Murphy: It is very interesting that the Member and his Opposition colleagues spent this morning challenging the authority of the Speaker on this matter.  However, when he refuses an amendment from my party, it is entirely correct.  You cannot have your cake and eat it.  The motion does not get to the heart of what we are trying to do.  It is simply about an opportunity to grandstand in the Chamber.
What this institution needs and what people are asking for is a proper, fully fledged —

Mr Speaker: Will the Member conclude his remarks?

Conor Murphy: — resolution.  The First Minister should step aside until that is concluded.  There is also a need for an urgent scheme to resolve the finance issue.

Steve Aiken: It is important that we listen —
[Interruption.]
— listen — to the angry and increasingly frustrated voices of our constituents, many of whom have directly expressed their incomprehension at how the scheme, which was available to just 5,000 recipients, giving them a potential tax-free payout of around £275,000, could have happened, notwithstanding the fact that it costs us over £85,000 a day and every day until this is sorted out.  However, I must express a much wider concern:  a malaise about our Government, who have a disregard for the people of Northern Ireland and are focused on the retention of power for the sake of power itself.  They are a Government who hold the process of good order. responsibility and accountability in contempt.  Whether it is the Economy Minister obfuscating about US airline routes, the Agriculture Minister denying that she has had discussions about waste incinerators, only to quote, 60 seconds later, from the same letter in the House, the Communities Minister telling councils to prepare to revive regeneration powers that then remain the same or the abject failure to address the existential challenge to Northern Ireland from Brexit, the arrogance of power with little or no accountability is beyond breathtaking — it approaches institutionalised corruption.
Added to that, we have a prison system in meltdown, with the suicide rate running at nearly one per week.  We have an Executive who seem to believe that it is perfectly all right for paramilitaries to lead social enterprises, even when the Chief Constable categorically makes it clear that illegal activities are being perpetrated by members of that organisation — an organisation whose accounts have to be qualified because the files caught fire.  It seems that the incineration of combustible material will be a metaphor for what will, hopefully, be the DUP leader's short term in office.  Her epitaph will be less about leading Northern Ireland into its second century than helping to keep Ferraris warm — this is just since July.
As to the question of standing aside, we need to refer in greater detail to the period when the DUP leader was the ETI Minister; indeed, until recently, she and her party were at pains to explain that her wealth of experience as Northern Ireland's longest-serving Minister made her ideally suited for this highest office.  Yet, she then explained that neither she nor any of the copious SpAds — more, I might add, than in Scotland and Wales combined — were, to use her language, "over the detail" of one of the most potentially expensive energy schemes anywhere.
Ministers do policy, and when that policy goes wrong in a normal government, they do the decent thing or are sacked.  The SpAds are sacked, and, under normal rules, the ex-Minister's SpAds and culpable civil servants are banned for several years from employment in the sector covered by their Minister.  Not here.  Any mapping out of the golden circle here will see the same names connected to Ministers and parties regularly appearing on quangos, often receiving up to £22,000 a year for their trouble.  Little wonder that a very senior US official compared Northern Ireland to the former East Germany but with better golf clubs.
We need to go back to 2012 when our then Minister decided — remarkably so, when many in her party deny that climate change is even happening — on a renewables policy for Northern Ireland.  There was even a very clear model, one that the United Kingdom would largely pay for and that had safeguards attached and a regulator that would ensure its smooth running.  It gave an incentive to industry and supported reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  Why, then, did DETI or, more appositely, the leader of the DUP decide not to follow it?  Did she have some form of intuitive insight that the rest of the UK renewables sector did not have?  Somehow, the GB scheme has managed to remain largely on budget and on delivery.  It is also noteworthy that GB is not commissioning renewable energy at twice the capacity of the grid to support it or charging small-scale producers three times the going rate for connection charges.
Again, those are all perverse policy decisions that deserve answers.
Why do we have a failure of energy policy, real concerns over brownouts or worse and some of the highest energy costs in Europe?

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Steve Aiken: They were all policy decisions made directly by the leader, yet there is no Minister who was responsible.  It was all the officials' fault.

Roy Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Steve Aiken: Yes.

Roy Beggs: Does the Member agree with me that a lot of this is about judgement, and that is where there is a big question mark over the actions of the Minister?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Steve Aiken: Quite frankly, it makes little or no sense.  Ofgem has made it clear that it was in regular contact with DETI, pointing out its concerns.  Like many people, we find it inconceivable that the civil servants did not keep in regular contact with DECC.
While I have little sympathy for Jonathan Bell on many things, he was clearly handed a £1·18 billion hospital pass if ever there was one.  Yet, no Minister is responsible.  It is all the officials' fault, it was somebody else or it was the previous Minister.  The responsibility, accountability —

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Steve Aiken: — and need to atone for this disaster lies with only one person.  The so-called leader of our country has shown neither the leadership, the gravitas or the humility to be our First Minister.  For all those reasons, she must stand down now.

Naomi Long: The year 2016 has not been a good year in politics generally, and it has been a particularly bad year for these institutions.  It has been marked by allegations of corruption, cronyism and incompetence; of cock-up and cover-up.  It is clear that, despite all of the DUP's bluff and bluster in an attempt to distract the public, the core questions around the RHI scheme remain unanswered.  Why was the scheme changed to remove the cost control measures that existed in the GB scheme?  Why was the opportunity to close that loophole and correct the scheme not grasped at the earliest possible opportunity?  Who knew of all of this, and at what stage?  Crucially, who stood to benefit from the lack of cost control and the delay in addressing that when it was drawn to their attention?
So far, despite the many statements emanating from the DUP — indeed, because of them — the only thing of which we can be sure is that we have not heard the truth or the whole truth; instead, we have heard anything but the truth.  We now need an independent, judge-led inquiry to forensically examine those issues and all of the paperwork, including emails and memos between those involved, special advisers, those who benefited from the scheme, Ministers and everyone else, including the civil servants.
The First Minister has spoken, quite rightly, of due process, but there is a precedent in this place.  The First Minister was called on today to voluntarily step down and allow an investigation to take place without prejudice.  I said it last week and I say it again:  she should put the integrity of office against the interests of her party.  She still has time to do so.  The previous First Minister stood aside to allow an investigation into a £50,000 land deal, which pales into insignificance in comparison with what we are dealing with here.

Stephen Farry: Will the Member give way?

Naomi Long: I will.

Stephen Farry: Does the Member agree with me that standing aside should not be taken as an admission of wrongdoing but as a reflection of the fact that there are issues to be addressed and confidence to be restored?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Naomi Long: Absolutely, I agree.  That is why I said that she should do so without prejudice to the outcome.
However, the First Minister initially blamed her officials, behind whom she is now seeking shelter.  The DUP said that neither of their Ministers had any responsibility for these issues, and so it stood until Jonathan Bell broke ranks.  Suddenly, the DUP was openly willing to say that the errors which it had previously denied were entirely his fault.  We have had whistle-blowers acknowledged, denied, exposed to the public and then acknowledged again, yet we still get lectures from the First Minister on clarity, truth and confidence.
Confidence is an issue that goes to the heart of this.  Look at the manner in which the First Minister handled the fiasco of making her statement this morning.  She failed to get the confidence and support of the deputy First Minister, and then continued with the statement in the absence of that support, undermining the very devolution settlement on which her office relies.  Confidence in the First Minister has continued to be undermined.  This is not about any individual; it is about these institutions, and it is about the anger, weariness and disgust that the public feel towards them at this point in time.
Stepping down at this stage, voluntarily and without prejudice, would be preferable, but it has been ruled out by the First Minister and her colleagues.  That is why my colleagues and I are supporting the motion.  In the new year, if Sinn Féin put forward a competent motion to effect an independent, judge-led inquiry, we will support that too.
Finally, we do not come here to support this lightly.  When we went into opposition, we made a commitment that we would be a constructive opposition and would support the Government where we believed they were acting in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland.  Well, today they are not acting in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland; they are failing them massively.  I call again on the First Minister to put the people of Northern Ireland first, as she has said that she will do.  Even at this late stage, voluntarily step down from your role and allow your colleague to step in and cover for you, as you did for the previous First Minister.  Initiate an independent, judge-led inquiry, under the Inquiries Act, in order that the truth can be told.  No one should fear the truth unless they are hiding it now.  If people are being fully honest, then they have nothing to fear.  I believe that it is the intention of the motion to get to the truth of this situation, not to satisfy me or the Chamber but to satisfy the people of Northern Ireland whose money has been squandered in this debacle.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Paul Givan: The public are rightly concerned about what has happened in the design of this scheme, about the abuse that has taken place in terms of the scheme and those who have been using it and how they have benefited from it.  They are rightly concerned at the committed spend as a result of this scheme, and they rightly want people to be held to account.  Those are all sentiments that Members, if they had been in the Chamber, would have heard the First Minister articulate in her statement and outline how we need to get to the truth in all of this.  This motion does not have, however, the process in which to seek that.  The motion is about one individual; it is not about the institutions or the Executive.  If it was, it would have been a motion around the scheme and all of those areas that have been highlighted.

Andy Allen: Will the Member give way?

Paul Givan: I will happily give way, yes.

Andy Allen: Will the Minister tell the House how many social houses could be built from the £400 million, now in a black hole from the scheme, for those languishing on the social housing waiting list?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Paul Givan: I appreciate the Member's additional minute.  The contribution highlights, however, that this motion is to be used for a whole range of other issues, as opposed to dealing with the substance of this issue.  It is about undermining Arlene Foster; that is what the purpose of this motion is.
If I was an Ulster Unionist, I would understand why you would want to undermine Arlene Foster.  We only need to go back to the election.  Mr Nesbitt, if he has his letter with him, can reopen it and see how many seats he was predicting.  We know why the Ulster Unionists want to undermine Arlene Foster.  We know why the SDLP is seeking to outflank Sinn Féin on this issue.  I say to Sinn Féin, do not be spooked by what the SDLP and People Before Profit are doing.  I understand that they are challenging in that constituency, but let us focus on tackling the key issues around the scheme and having a process in place that will get to the truth.
The motion brought forward by the SDLP has been seen for what it is.  It is nothing but political opportunism from the party that once was the party of civil rights, that believed in innocent unless proven guilty and believed in due process.  Now, set that all aside; this motion is about passing the sentence, never mind the verdict.  Let us see if we can get the evidence to fit into the verdict that they now want to cast in the Assembly.  That shows how the SDLP has moved from being the party of civil rights; it is not surprising that they have departed from that.  When Mr Eastwood was being put right by Mr Weir with regard to the coffin that he carried, he did not like to be reminded of that.  He does not like to be reminded of it because it is the truth.  Members can point out all of the political opportunism that they have with the First Minister.  There is nothing to hide on these Benches, but whenever the truth and the hypocrisy that they have had over many years is pointed out to the SDLP, they do not like it because it is the truth.
(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker [Ms Ruane] in the Chair)
Then, we have the media and the narrative that they have been pursuing.  Mrs Foster referred to the publicly funded broadcaster — let us name it as the BBC — and the way in which it has conducted itself as an organisation, which is in stark contrast to some other media outlets.  Again, it is about presenting allegations as fact.  Again, it has been about —

Naomi Long: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.  Is it possible for you to give a ruling?  The Minister for Communities is currently speaking as a Back-Bench DUP Member, but he has responsibility for public broadcasting in Northern Ireland and is making serious allegations against a public broadcaster:  is that in order?

Caitriona Ruane: The Member has had the opportunity to put her point on record.  The Member was called as an individual Member, not as a Minister.

Paul Givan: The BBC uses pejorative language in its interviews, presenting allegations as facts.  Clearly, there has been a pursuit of Arlene Foster as an individual.  The entirety of the case has been personalised.  It has been made in the absence of fact on the broader issues about how submissions were never brought, the issue was never highlighted and there were failures on the part of civil servants to identify the issues.  Like the public, I am alarmed that, although civil servants had given evidence to the PAC, it was only after the event — through a secret shopper — that we got to the truth.  I share the anger that the public have around all of this.  When the issue has been presented by the BBC and the Opposition, it has all been personalised in order to pursue the First Minister.
I remind Naomi Long, who spoke earlier, of something.  This highlights how other Members reacted when the matter was dealt with in the Chamber.  It was dealt with by Patsy McGlone when he was Chairman of the Committee and by all Members of the House.  When Trevor Lunn, for whom I have a lot of respect, dealt with the issue of when the then Minister wanted the scheme to close, which we now know was at the end of March — then, obviously, it had to be within two weeks — he said:
"It is good news because it is an excellent scheme.  A lot of people have already benefited from it, and a few more may do so before the thing closes." [Official Report (Hansard) 15 February 2016, p60, col1].
Opposition Members were saying then that it was an excellent scheme.  Clearly, the evidence now shows that that is not the case, and hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Let us be clear, there will not be the resignation of the First Minister.  There will not be a stepping aside by the First Minister.  This party would not allow her to step aside even if she wanted to, but she does not want to.  The First Minister has led the Executive for the past six months.  We have been delivering on a range of issues.  The Opposition want to diminish that and have used this motion as a smokescreen to try to dilute it all.  We will continue to remain focused on what we need to achieve, which is to continue, over the mandate, to address the key issues that need to be tackled.  Let us focus on what is important.  Let us get to the root of the issues around the scheme and tackle the issue of the expenditure that is committed.  Ultimately, that is what the public want.  The public do not want to see the pantomime that went on this morning with the walkout, when Members could have held the First Minister to account but chose not to do so.  They want us to get to grips with the issue.
It was with regret that I watched Jonathan Bell's performance when he gave evidence.  The public will make judgement in due course on what was said during that.  As a believer — as someone who is a Christian — I know that Jonathan can reflect on his conduct.  I point him to Luke chapter 18 and the parable that the Lord told about the publican and the Pharisee.  Members who are familiar with that parable —

Caitriona Ruane: Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Paul Givan: — will be able to draw a parallel.

Caitriona Ruane: I remind Members that there is one Minister responding to the debate.  I ask that Members do not make responses that relate to the Executive.

Michelle O'Neill: I think that the Benches opposite are absolutely misreading the public perception.  We have spent a good part of the past number of hours since today's business in the Chamber started on antics, shambolic actions and statements being made without the authority of the entire Executive Office.  I do not think that that is good enough.  I am embarrassed as I stand here listening to the debate that has taken place so far.  You are losing the run of yourselves.  This issue is about public confidence.
The Member who spoke previously talked about how the Executive had delivered in the past number of months since they came into play after the election.  They have delivered on many fronts.  Every action and delivery that has happened to date has been overshadowed by the fact that the DUP cannot accept that its leader needs to stand aside to make sure that there is a full investigation of the issues that have been played out and drip-fed into the ether for the past number of weeks.
I am not interested in the internal wrangling of the DUP.  Get on with it; fight among yourselves.  I am interested in this:  public confidence in politics.  I am interested in making sure that people have faith that, when they go out on election day, they can return us to come up here to do business, deliver for public services, stand up against Tory austerity and deliver front-line services.  That is what I am interested in.
There is a massive job of work to be done here on public confidence.  We in Sinn Féin feel that the best way to do that is to make sure that the First Minister stands aside because she has a conflict of interest.  There cannot be a full investigation that the First Minister in any way has her hands in through how it is played out.  The only way that we will restore that public confidence is if the investigation is totally independent, in that not one of us can touch it.  I think that it has to be an independent investigation.  For me, the message that needs to go out to the public today is genuine.  We have to get to the bottom of this RHI scandal.  We need to know the ins and outs, and we need to know the design of the scheme and who did what, when they did it, how they did it and with whose influence they did it.  We need all those —

Daniel McCrossan: Will the Member give way?

Michelle O'Neill: Let me finish this point.
All that information needs to be in the public domain.
Secondly, the public need to know that action is being taken to stop the flow of money from the public purse.  That is key in all this.  The public need to know and to have faith that, when a problem was identified and a scandal uncovered, it was stopped.  We need to do that.  Thirdly, all this has to be in the public domain.  Everybody needs to know exactly who benefited from the scheme and when they are going to benefit.  All that information needs to be out there, and, for me, those three things are key.
Our position is very clear, and we have made it absolutely crystal clear.  The First Minister, Arlene Foster, needs to step aside while this investigation happens.  Let me say that, when I listen to those who tabled the motion, in some senses, I doubt your motivation.  I listened to your antics and your contributions today.  The public are not interested in playing games; the public are interested in answers.  The best way to have those is to have this full investigation.

Sinead Bradley: Will the Member give way?

Michelle O'Neill: Let me make this point.
Those who tabled the motion focus on one issue:  Arlene Foster standing down.  I have said that I agree with that, but your motion does not go far enough.  Your motion does not look at the whole gamut or at the need for the investigation.  Your motion does not look at every other issue that needs to be out there in public.  That is why we tabled an amendment that, given all the antics that went on this morning, the Speaker, for his own reasons, decided not to accept.  We will bring that amendment back as a motion.  I welcome the fact that Naomi Long said that the Alliance Party will be able to or could support that when we come back to it early in the new year.
People should stop getting on with all the nonsense.  The institutions have taken an absolute kicking here.  I am absolutely wedded to delivering front-line public services for individuals.  I am a Health Minister with massive challenges in budgetary issues and in trying to do all the things we need to do to increase our investment in primary care.  Those are the things that the public want to hear us talk about, not this stuff.  So for me today, this is about antics, this is about stunts, this is about —

Sinead Bradley: Will the Member give way?

Michelle O'Neill: You will have your opportunity to speak.
This is about antics and stunts, so let us get back to the crux of the issue:  credibility and integrity.  Each and every one of us needs to have those.  Arlene Foster needs to step aside.  We have made that very clear.  Let us use the next number of weeks to reflect so that, when we come back to our motion, which we have now tabled for debate early in the new year, I will look forward to all those who tabled the motion today supporting that motion.  That is the key to delivering what the public are asking for.  The public mood shows that people are angry.  People want and deserve answers, and we will deliver those.  I will not be distracted by party politics.  This is not an orange and green issue, and it is not an issue between parties:  it is about public confidence and integrity.  Those are what I am most interested in in how we take things forward.
In the future —

Caitriona Ruane: Can I ask the Member to bring her remarks to a close?

Michelle O'Neill: These are the only two points that I want to make:  there should be integrity and credibility, and people should stop playing games and give the public answers.  The First Minister needs to stand aside.

Caitriona Ruane: The Member's time is up.

Daniel McCrossan: Action is louder than words.

Caitriona Ruane: I ask Members not to make comments from a sedentary position.

Lord Morrow: We were not long in the Chamber today when we discovered the whole nature of the motion.  Earlier today, we had the First Minister come to the House.  She was asked and was willing to come to the House.  She came to the House to put herself in front of Members for any interrogation and cross-examination, but all those sitting to my right said, "Look, we are not interested in the facts here.  The facts don't bother us in the slightest.  We are just interested in what hits the headlines, whether it is in the print media, the watching media, the listening media or anything else".
That is all that they are interested in.  So, what did they do?  They jumped up and said, "We will not be listening to any facts, folks.  We must get out of the House because the facts will embarrass us".  Therefore, they gowl here today.  When you throw a stone into a pack of dogs, you always know the one that you have hit:  it is the one that gowls the loudest.  What we have right round the Chamber today are a lot of people gowling and shouting but not coming forward with very many facts.  They just want to generate a whole lot of heat.
[Laughter.]
However, they do not want to generate a lot of light, because there is no light within them.

Jim Allister: Will the Member give way?

Lord Morrow: Not at the moment; maybe later.
The motion is nothing short of a disgraceful attempt, to say the least, by failed parties to create the impression that the First Minister has:
"failed to observe the highest standards of propriety and regularity in relation to the stewardship of public funds".
They have, however, not produced a scintilla of evidence or any facts — not one.
I never knew Mr Steve Aiken until he came to the House, but I have learned one thing from him very quickly:  he is an absolute maestro of exaggeration.  My goodness, he can lift a pinhead and make it into a mountain instantly, and I remind him that he was at it today.  He talks about the £400 million.

Steve Aiken: It is £87,000 a day.

Lord Morrow: Hold on a minute.  You have had your say.

Caitriona Ruane: I ask Members not to make —

Steve Aiken: I apologise, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Lord Morrow: At least there is a bit of humility in you.  He talked about this £400 million.  Well, £400 million has not been spent, Mr Aiken.  He went on to say that there is a suicide in our prisons every week.  When is that happening?  This is unbelievable stuff.  We have gone along the line of fantasy and make-believe:  grab the headlines, say the super things and the media will come racing for it.

Andy Allen: Will the Member give way?

Lord Morrow: OK.

Andy Allen: The Member has asked us to give him facts.  The fact of the matter is that, if the money that has been committed — £400 million — cannot be clawed back, it will be taken away from our roads, our hospitals, our social housing and our front-line services, which are in much need of it.  There are facts for you.

Caitriona Ruane: The Member has an extra minute.

Lord Morrow: Mr Allen, here are some facts for you:  had you been in the House earlier today —

Caitriona Ruane: I ask Members to address their comments through the Chair.

Lord Morrow: I forgot.
I say to Mr Allen that the facts are these:  the First Minister stood at the Dispatch Box this morning and explained and outlined in graphic detail how she was dealing with the issue, but Mr Allen was bound —
[Interruption.]
You were not here to hear it.
[Interruption.]
You ran away.

Caitriona Ruane: Will the Member please take a seat?

Lord Morrow: I will.

Caitriona Ruane: I remind the Member to make his comments through the Chair.  I hope that I do not have to repeat that.

Lord Morrow: I understand what you say, but I hope that Members will give me the courtesy of being heard.  I suspect that they do not like what they are hearing.  Do you know something?  You are going to hear it anyway.
Let us turn to Mr Nesbitt —

Mike Nesbitt: Oh, yes.

Lord Morrow: Yes, of course.  Mr Nesbitt now has the unenviable job of getting the monkey off his back, and the monkey is this:  he was the great white hope for the Ulster Unionist Party.  The Ulster Unionist Party had dominated the political scene for so long, and it wheeled in this TV kid and said, "This is the boy who will save us".  What happened?  He led his party to the lowest vote in its history.  He now sees Arlene Foster as the real threat, and he must get rid of her.  You will not be getting rid of her.  You will not be getting rid of her.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Lord Morrow: Then, we turn to the SDLP.  They, too, had a catastrophic election result under their young leader, the young pretender who tells his party that they will lead, but they are sinking desperately.
They sink so low that they will now even name children's play parks after terrorists so that they can court support from Sinn Féin supporters, and it does not work.  They all sit with blushed faces and say, "We're sorry, but there's not a thing we can do about it".  Let it be said very clearly that the same Mr Nesbitt — I will leave him for a minute.
Then we have the sanctimonious Alliance Party.  They are whiter than white and purer than pure.  They come into the House with this sanctimonious look on their face —

Caitriona Ruane: Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Lord Morrow: — and tell us that they would not do this.  We know the fiasco that Mr Ford made of the policing depot in Cookstown.  Where is our policing depot today?  He spent and squandered millions of pounds, and we heard nothing from him.

Caitriona Ruane: The Member's time is up.  There is a lot of noise from the Back Benches.  I ask Members to respect whomever is speaking.  I also ask that Members make comments through the Chair, rather than shouting across the Chamber.

Jennifer Palmer: There are two principal reasons why the First Minister must take responsibility for the mess and stand aside.  First, her ineptitude has dealt a devastating blow to our international business reputation.  For a Minister who prided herself on the levels of FDI that she attracted and boasted of how attractive she would make Northern Ireland for investment, she has brought disdain on these institutions, which are now held up to public ridicule.
I agree that we ought to fight to limit the damage done to our public purse.  We need to stop the bleed as best we can.  The First Minister is not a safe pair of hands on Northern Ireland's public finances.  She is clearly not across the detail, despite her public utterances that "detail is important".  Why would businesses look to come here when our First Minister has made such a catastrophic policy decision?  She was the First Minister; she was responsible.  What must the United Kingdom Treasury think of us and our apparent inability to manage public funds?  Will this impact on our future ask for additional block grant funding?  What will the head of the Civil Service do about the possible negligence issues amongst senior staff?  The DUP, particularly its leadership, is central to this, and the First Minister stepping aside will help to fix some of the harm that has been done to our business reputation.
The second reason for the First Minister to step aside is this:  no one can trust her to do the right thing.  How on earth can the First Minister expect anyone to put their faith in her while this issue is being investigated?

Eamonn McCann: Will the Member give way?

Jennifer Palmer: No, I will not.
How foolish does she think the people of Northern Ireland are that they would trust her to be impartial and allow a report to be published — and its recommendations enacted — that will damn her and her party?  Does she honestly expect the House and the people of Northern Ireland to have such short memories?  Does the First Minister expect the way in which I was treated to be forgotten and the slate wiped clean?  I am sorry, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, but it seems that she apparently has forgotten what happened the last time a DUP Minister was investigated for loathsome practice and the disdain with which the DUP treats Committee reports.  A report was issued in 2014 in which I was vindicated and a certain gentleman sitting on the DUP Back Benches, as well as the special adviser who conveniently retired from politics shortly before this mess was exposed, were found wanting.  That report, which was produced by the Assembly's Social Development Committee after exhaustive evidence sessions and research, contained the truth of the matter.  How did the First Minister's party react to the truth being shown?  They tried to silence it.  They tried to put forward their own spin in the form of a minority report.  They tried to use the petition of concern to defend the party and the Minister from the truth coming out.  They treated the Assembly, the Committee and me with contempt.
Why on earth should we ever trust that party to accept the truth?  Why would anyone doubt for a moment that, if the report produced by the PAC was unpalatable to DUP Members, they would attempt to water it down or block it?  They have done it before.  They did it to me.  Even if a report is issued independently — one that rightly points to the odious incompetence at the heart of the DUP — without the proper Assembly powers, why would we doubt that they would misuse the petitions of concern and other mechanisms to insulate their party from justice?
No, I am afraid that I for one, having been through purgatory because of the DUP, certainly will not allow them to conceal the truth behind opaque Assembly mechanisms.
Arlene Foster is too closely tied to the scandal.  Her party has a miserable history of protecting itself from any meaningful scrutiny by this Assembly.  For that reason, she absolutely must stand aside while a genuinely independent investigation is done.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

John O'Dowd: Before us in the Chamber over these last number of hours, we have had two attempts to close down an investigation.
In the motion before us from the opposition parties and the Alliance Party, we have a proposal to come to the conclusion of an investigation before it is started.  That, surely, is not the way we should be doing business.
The motion, as outlined to us, states that the First Minister, in her role as Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister, acted in a way that put public funds in severe jeopardy and squandered them.  Is that the case?  It is quite possibly the case, but to reach that conclusion, you require an investigation, and the motion from the opposition parties does not include any investigation.  It does not include a reference to a judge-led inquiry or any material as to how that inquiry would be carried out, so the motion is fatally flawed and premature.
This morning, we had a statement from the leader of the DUP —

Steven Agnew: Will the Member give way?

John O'Dowd: Perhaps in a moment.  I will see.
— we had a statement from the leader of the DUP that contained the conclusions of a DUP investigation.  I referenced 15 conclusions or references to the truth or facts.  I am sorry, but that is simply not good enough.  It is not up to the opposition to find the leader of the DUP guilty, and it is not up to the DUP to find the leader of the DUP innocent.
That is why we have brought forward a motion that calls for a judge-led inquiry by a figure from outside this jurisdiction into the rights and wrongs of what happened around the RHI scheme, which political figures were involved in it, which Civil Service figures were or were not involved in it and who benefited from it.  That is how you do business in relation to placing accusations in front of people, whether in the Assembly or a court of law.  Those are the rules that we all signed up to.
I listened with interest, I have to say, to the leader of the DUP talking about trial by television and ensuring that accusations are fully investigated etc.  I hope they stick to that mantra.  I think of my colleague Máirtín Ó Muilleoir and how, only a few short months ago, the same principles and high integrity were not adopted at that stage.  But if we stick to the rules, we can all play by the rules.
In terms of what happened around RHI, there was, without doubt, a flaw in the system.  We all acknowledge that.  Everybody accepts that there was a flaw in the system.  The question that has to be answered is this:  when was the flaw identified, who identified it and who benefited from it?
At the heart of this is not an investigation into whether a Minister, a civil servant or a scrutiny Committee did not carry out their functions properly.  The general public are highly suspicious — and they are quite right to be so — that someone or a group of selected people benefited to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds individually, and perhaps up to £1 million in one case, of public money.
Who told them of this lucrative deal?  Who spotted the flaw and went out and met members of business groups and farmers who may or may not be contributors to the DUP?  Because, folks, that is what is at the heart of this:  corruption.  Were members or supporters of the Democratic Unionist Party or other political parties in this Chamber taken to one side, shown the details of the scheme and told, "Buy into this and you'll make money"?
That is the public suspicion, folks.  I am sorry, but the DUP investigation that was read out to us this morning does not cover that issue, and it needs to be covered.
I will end on this comment.  Part of the problem is that some in the Chamber believe that we have a Prime Minister of Norn Iron: we do not.  You are in the joint First Minister and deputy First Minister's office, and that is the way that things have to operate here.  I do not care what legal advice was given to the Speaker this morning; I will give you some serious political advice:  if the jointery of that office is corrupted, I doubt that there will be an office.

Caitriona Ruane: I call Simon Hamilton.  Mr Hamilton, are you speaking in your —

Simon Hamilton: I am speaking as an ordinary Member, Principal Deputy Speaker.
I oppose the motion.  I do so because the motion is based on a litany of erroneous charges — charges that are all without evidence.  I want to do my best in the time that is available to me to address some of the issues surrounding at least two of those charges.  The first one, which seems to be the argument coming from opposition Benches, is that Arlene Foster should take full and sole responsibility for mistakes that were made and flaws that were inherent in the original design of the renewable heat incentive scheme.

Roy Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Simon Hamilton: I have hardly started, for goodness' sake.  The First Minister has made it clear that she does take responsibility.  She is answerable to the House.  She is answerable to the Assembly.  She made herself answerable to it at the Dispatch Box this morning at the request of Members whose names the motion stands in.  Where were the opposition parties when the First Minister came to the House this morning to give a full and complete explanation of the circumstances behind the RHI scheme and her involvement in it?  They were not here.  They ran away.  The charge is that the First Minister should take sole and full responsibility for the flaws in the design of the scheme.  That completely misses out and obscures the involvement of Members on all sides of the House and, critically, others in the design of the scheme.

Trevor Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Simon Hamilton: Yes, I will give way.

Trevor Clarke: Will the Member agree with me that that may be a deliberate ploy by other Members to take the focus off themselves and some of their actions when the scheme was going to be closed?

Caitriona Ruane: The Member has an extra minute.

Simon Hamilton: I thank the Member for his intervention.  He makes a salient point.
The House knows full well that bad advice was given by so-called policy experts in the Department on the design of the scheme.  External consultants were brought in to review the scheme.  They have admitted to the Public Accounts Committee that they made mistakes, and they have apologised for those.  The Assembly voted for it.  This is not something that went through the negative resolution procedure or that did not have to come to the House:  the House voted for the regulations to set up the scheme.  They were scrutinised by and passed through the Committee.  The then Chair of the Committee, Mr Patsy McGlone, is on record during the debate in the House in which the regulations were passed as saying:
"The Committee scrutiny of the development of the renewable heat incentive has been considerable and reflects the importance and long-term nature of the proposals." — [Official Report (Hansard), Bound Volume 78, p299, col 2].
That is what Mr McGlone said in the House.  In all that is said in here and outside the House, let us not forget for one second the role played by Members from parties on all sides of the House in the creation and scrutiny of the scheme.  I am happy to say that no one — not politicians, civil servants or external consultants — spotted the flaws.  No one.  Members here wish to wipe away their involvement in the creation of the scheme and their part in passing the proposals.  They do not want to take responsibility for that, but they should take responsibility.
The second charge that I want to deal with, which I have heard from Members who spoke previously, is that the Minister somehow intervened to keep the scheme open for a longer period for some nefarious reason that nobody seems to want to talk about or make any suggestion about.  There is not a single shred of evidence of any involvement by the current First Minister in the issues surrounding the 2015 change in the tariff of the scheme.  However, in 2016, the First Minister was heavily involved and intervened, but her intervention at that time was to the benefit of the scheme.
It was to bring forward the closure of the scheme to an earlier date than that which had been agreed by the then Minister, who had agreed to close the scheme in mid March.  The intervention of the First Minister and deputy First Minister at that time brought forward the closure of the scheme to February.  If anything, in respect of that charge, we should thank the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their intervention.
Lest there be any doubt, Arlene Foster will not step aside.  Why would she?  She has done nothing wrong.  She has nothing to fear.  That is why she has called for and endorsed an independent investigation of the RHI scheme so that all the evidence is out there and the truth will be found.  She fears nothing from the truth.  There is no evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing, yet people want to hang her on the basis of no substantial evidence at all.  She certainly will not step down at the behest of her political opponents, who have shown themselves by their actions today and on previous days to have no interest in the substance of this and to be interested only in stunts.  She will not go anywhere because she has a job to do.  I am working closely with her on developing a plan to mitigate the worst costs and reduce substantially the cost of the RHI scheme.  Arlene Foster is a leader.  Leaders walk towards the problem.  They do not walk away like others do.  When they have the opportunity to lead or to take on the responsibility of government —

Caitriona Ruane: Can the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Simon Hamilton: — others walk away.  Arlene Foster will walk nowhere.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Claire Hanna: It is fair to say that belief in the will and ability of the Assembly has been low in recent years, but this fiasco has turned that public frustration and dissatisfaction into anger.  The First Minister has had ample opportunity over the last two weeks to restore some confidence and dignity in the institution and to instigate a thorough public inquiry to get to the root of how and why £400 million of public money is being so shamefully wasted.  We want to be clear that a fudged inquiry that is set up and directed by the Executive or their proxies will not be able to get to the bottom of that scandal.  Any brinkmanship about and risk to the structure, despite that deep frustration, will leave us with no possibility of getting to the bottom of it.
Not for the first time, I wonder whether the party across the Chamber cares who they make cynical when they can just trot out, as the First Minister and her colleagues have done, the old headcount lines that it is about nationalists and others ganging up on the leader of unionism while the benign —

Christopher Stalford: Will the Member give way?

Claire Hanna: No, I will not.
The benign taxpayer here is supposed to just continue picking up the tab and becoming more and more disenfranchised.
The arrogance today is breathtaking.  You may think that this is hilarious, but nobody out there is laughing at this loss of money.  The defence has been to spread it about and blame it on anybody but the boss — on civil servants, the Opposition and the media — using "whataboutery", repeated versions of the story and a best defence of not being across the detail.  The party that has been moaning about faceless unelected bureaucrats in Europe is apparently content to let SpAds run the show.  The party that cannot even cut and paste London's scheme tells us that it has the competence to lead Northern Ireland.
This scandal represents the Executive's ineptitude and dysfunction.  The fact is that, during the in/out charade of last year, when Arlene Foster was left to guard against rogues and renegades, and, according to Peter Robinson, was there to ensure that nationalists and republicans were not able to take financial and other decisions that may be detrimental to Northern Ireland, a well-intentioned scheme was apparently being used as a ruse to make money for those who were in the know.  It is clear now who the rogues and renegades are.
It is also clear which party was in the driving seat here, but we are left wondering what the other partner in government has been doing.  As with NAMA and SIF, Sinn Féin has either been turning a blind eye here or has merely been along for the ride:  in government but not in power.  We defend the joint nature of the Executive Office, as we did when we would not listen to illegitimate preaching to the choir this morning.  People will want to know that there is, indeed, a joint office and that somebody is there to prevent what really is becoming worse than the worst excesses of one-party Stormont rule in the past.  If Sinn Féin believes that it is what Mr O'Dowd just said it was — corruption — and it wants to do anything other than throw shapes, it can support our motion to exclude the First Minister.  If, on the long finger in the new year, it wants to build on that with an inquiry, it can do so — we will all support an inquiry — but there is no reason why it cannot support our motion.
At a time when household budgets are under pressure, the sums here are horrifying, but I have heard very little about those sums from the Benches opposite.  The view that, apparently, because it was London money, it was OK to squander it is really breathtaking and arrogant.  Whether the money comes from London, Brussels, Washington or Belfast, somebody earned it and paid it in tax, and all taxpayers are entitled to know that their money is being fairly spent.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Claire Hanna: I will not; I have a lot to get through.
The environmental aims of the scheme were completely ignored by the Department, which took it from the Department of Energy and Climate Change and made it into what has, apparently, been just a money-making scheme that has led to more environmental degradation as not just public money but the materials involved go up in smoke.  The ramifications will be felt not just over the next 20 years but now, in that we were supposed to be discussing the Budget today and instead are discussing this fiasco.  At a time when the Executive need more scrutiny, not less, the Opposition will not have access to the Budget figures this side of recess.
In the minds of the public, alleged cronyism and corruption are written all over this.  Mrs Foster has an opportunity to restore some faith.  You referred to conviction without trial, but Peter Robinson set the precedent for this and the Civil Service uses the same mechanism, whereby somebody who is being investigated stands aside.  This very weekend, you suspended a member of your party, pending an investigation.  Take the plank out of your eye, and take the opportunity to —

Patsy McGlone: Will the Member give way?

Caitriona Ruane: Will the Member bring her remarks to a close?

Claire Hanna: — restore some confidence in the Assembly.  I will give way.

Patsy McGlone: I thank the Member for giving way —

Caitriona Ruane: The Member's time is up.

Claire Hanna: No, I said I would give way.

Caitriona Ruane: OK.

Patsy McGlone: Does the Member agree that some on the Benches opposite have a short memory?  As Mr O'Dowd mentioned, they suggested that Máirtín Ó Muilleoir step aside during an investigation of the affairs around Mr Bryson.

Caitriona Ruane: The Member has less than a minute — 20 seconds.

Claire Hanna: Yes, I agree.  If the party opposite is so confident that there has been no wrongdoing, let all the facts go into the public domain.  Let it be dealt with at a remove from the Assembly, and let us restore some confidence in the Assembly.

William Humphrey: I am saddened and appalled by the motion because, as the leader of the SDLP clearly confirmed in his contribution to the debate, it is personal.  I met Arlene Foster nearly 30 years ago.  I have always believed her to be a true friend and colleague, a person of the highest integrity, honesty and loyalty and someone who works hard with commitment and dedication.  It is fair to talk about the last week because, unlike Ms Hanna, I recognise that the Minister was in China the previous week, fighting for jobs and new markets for our pork producers.  This all happened when she was out of the country, which is, perhaps, no surprise.
Many politicians and journalists have sought to attack Arlene Foster's character.  That portrayal of Arlene Foster — my colleague, my friend, my leader and our First Minister — is not what I know of her, and it is not what the people on these Benches know of her.
I will speak of Arlene Foster as a Minister.  Since her election to Stormont, Arlene Foster has been a first-class Minister, holding the portfolios of environment; enterprise, trade and investment; and finance.  She is now our First Minister, and a truly outstanding First Minister she is, popular in the unionist and broader Northern Ireland community.  There is no doubt that she has brought competence, incisiveness, professionalism and attention to detail to every role that she has had here, particularly her ministerial roles.

Christopher Stalford: I am grateful to the Member for giving way.  Figures have been bandied around in the media.  Does the Member agree that it is a bit rich for a party that spent £40 million on a road that was never built to lecture anybody on how to run a Department?

Caitriona Ruane: The Member has an extra minute.

William Humphrey: If Members choose to deal with facts, not fantasy, they will remember that, in DETI, this Minister led from the front, securing jobs and attracting to Northern Ireland foreign direct investment that exceeded even that going to London and the south-east of England.  Her focus and the focus of my party has been on strengthening the economy, and her leadership and the results delivered by Arlene Foster are absolutely testament to that.
From my short time on the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, I can confirm that, when she appeared in front of that Committee, Arlene Foster was absolutely in complete command of that brief.  Indeed, most importantly, as a Minister, not only did she enjoy the confidence of that Committee and of the Chairman of the Committee, as has been exemplified by Mr Hamilton's remarks, she enjoyed the confidence of foreign Governments, foreign investors, local business, local business associations and, indeed, the trade unions.
I want to turn to the RHI scheme.  There is no doubt that, in the First Minister's own words in the House this morning, there were shocking errors and failures in the RHI scheme, and a catalogue of mistakes.  Without question.  It is for the credibility of the House and of the Northern Ireland Executive that we have to regain the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland and of those people who sent us here to do a job of work.  It is essential that these errors and mistakes in the scheme are arrested.  There must be transparency and there must be openness.  There must be an independent investigation.  Indeed, that is exactly what the First Minister said this morning in the House.  There must be financial recovery, and that is exactly what the First Minister, the Finance Minister and the Economy Minister are working on.  Indeed, I understand that that is exactly what the First Minister is doing at this very moment.
I have spoken to many people over the last week when I have been out in my constituency and others, and it is absolutely clear that people out there are fearful and concerned about the levels of money that are being talked about, but the levels of money being talked about in the House — Members know it well — are not the levels of money that have been spent on this scheme.  That is exactly the issue that the First Minister addressed this morning.
In conclusion, it is for the First Minister, the Executive and the House to provide certainty, confidence and surety to the people of Northern Ireland.  It is our duty and our responsibility, but, as a member of the Democratic Unionist Party and as Chair of a Committee of the House, I have to say that I have known Arlene Foster a long, long time.  She has the skills, the talent, the attributes and the determination, and will clear up what is a mess and see the confidence restored to the people of Northern Ireland, for this House and for these institutions.  She has my full support.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Stephen Farry: The situation is continuing to escalate today, and the hopes that some of us had — somewhat naively, perhaps — that things would be brought to a head and confidence would be restored are being sorely dashed.  The issue remains one of public confidence.  Public confidence is extremely low, and we have to be humble across all corners of the Assembly and recognise that.  That builds upon what has been a very difficult and challenging six months for the Assembly, where it has become characterised by a lack of openness and transparency on the part of the Executive and a succession of scandals.  It is important to bear in mind that while the current fiasco around renewable heat is the most extreme, it is not the only issue of public concern at present.
This has now become a crisis of power-sharing, and the institutions are being pushed to their limits.  The checks and balances that would be at play in other, normal democracies — I accept that we are not a fully normal democracy — are not at all present in our own situation.  If this was happening elsewhere, the expectation, internally within the legislature and in the media, would lead to the main players voluntarily stepping aside while the process of restoring confidence played out.  We can point to numerous examples of that in neighbouring jurisdictions and, indeed, further afield.  Members have also cited the precedent of Peter Robinson in 2010, and I say to the DUP that, insofar as it is denying that there is any case for Mrs Foster to step aside, it is implicitly attacking Mr Robinson for having the decency to step aside in 2010.  I stress that he was ultimately cleared as part of that process.

Christopher Stalford: Will the Member give way?

Stephen Farry: Yes.

Christopher Stalford: The Member, his colleagues and others in the House have had the best part of a week to throw questions and accusations at the First Minister in the press.  The First Minister made herself available for questioning and scrutiny.  Do you think that the public really care about this joint-nature defence that you have put up for not being here to ask questions?  No, they do not.

Caitriona Ruane: The Member has an extra minute.

Stephen Farry: I care, and Mr Stalford should care as well.  We need to take very seriously what has happened today and the wider implications that will flow from it.  There is a case for reviewing the joint nature of the Executive Office; frankly, it is a cumbersome wreck.  It takes weeks, if not months or years, for answers to emerge to questions and for correspondence to be addressed because of the joint sign-off.  However, there can be no unilateral runs, as happened today.  I dare say that what has happened today sets a precedent.  Frankly, Mrs Foster was tone-deaf to political circumstances in the Chamber.  If she was a true leader, she would have understood the potential damage to the institutions of a solo run and stepped back voluntarily.  Now, I would like to have the proper forum to ask questions, and no doubt it will emerge in due course, but doing that today in this half-baked manner was entirely counterproductive.
Let us look at some of the issues before us:  how the scheme was designed; how the whistle-blower was handled; the nature of the closure of the scheme; and concerns over potential conflicts of interest.  Arising from that, we need to see the full list of those who were recipients of the grants.  Frankly, an opt-in scheme is not good enough, because there will be questions about who has not opted in.  Alongside that, names of donors to the DUP need to be published, so that people can make a full comparison between the two lists.  Everything may be perfectly innocent, but that important information should be out there in the public interest.
There is also the wider challenge in terms of the DUP's approach to governance.  There are issues concerning Arlene Foster's attention to detail.  When were questions asked?  Indeed, were the relevant questions asked?  Did she ask at the outset whether the approach they were adopting was sustainable and what the risks were?  Any Minister doing their job should ask their officials those questions — particularly about the potential costs — whenever a submission comes across their desk.  It is right that questions are asked of the Civil Service.  The Civil Service includes many brilliant and dedicated people, but they are not infallible.  That is why Ministers and special advisers are there.  They are, in effect, the internal line of defence.  They should scrutinise their Departments in the same way that they expect the Assembly to do so on the outside.  In my experience, both I and my special adviser caught things that were not caught by the Civil Service and saved money as a consequence.
There is a wider issue, and I put this on the record:  we have to be concerned about the potential politicisation of the Civil Service, which is becoming a political football on the issue.  Officials are being dragged out, backwards and forwards, and cited to defend one political point against another.  We need to be very careful that we do not lose the impartiality of the Civil Service.
Then there is the approach to decision-making by Ministers and SpAds.  That is not how Alliance did government.  Our Ministers and special advisers knew the boundaries of their respective roles.  They respected one another and were, in turn, respected by their civil servants.  I am sure that applies to those who have operated from many other political parties as well.
There is the issue of how this has been handled in the media over the past number of days.  There was a refusal to apologise and accept responsibility until quite late in the day.
Then, there is the need for a proper public inquiry.  On that point, I stress that the motion is necessary but not sufficient.  If there had been a voluntary stepping aside, the motion would not be necessary —

Caitriona Ruane: I ask the Member to draw his remarks to a close.

Stephen Farry: — but it is necessary in that context.  However, we are not precluded from discussing, on a separate day, a separate motion regarding a public inquiry.  We are certainly happy to do that and will give it our support.

Roy Beggs: I rise in support of the motion.  First Minister, as a result of your flawed renewable heat scheme some £485 million of taxpayer funds have been committed wastefully from future Budgets.  That is a big number.  Unused barns are being heated while many struggle to heat their homes.  Inspections have been inadequate.  These are all facts.  I acknowledge that many businesses were attracted to the scheme, particularly in the early days, for sound environmental reasons rather than as a means of generating profit.  Clearly, that changed.  The integrity of this institution is at stake.  Who is accountable for these hundreds of millions of pounds in costs and losses?
'The Nolan Show' this morning revealed that Minister Foster received a personal email directly from the whistle-blower in September 2013, in which the specific warnings were detailed, but they were not acted on.  Explain.
The Northern Ireland Executive are in a state of turmoil.  The attention of DUP Ministers is not on the well-being of the people of Northern Ireland but on continuing personal power.  Today was pencilled in for the draft Budget originally.  There has been no talk of it.  Without proper, advance planning for all the Departments and agencies and the community and voluntary sector, poor decision-making will result.  The Executive are in disarray.  Rather than talking about a Budget, the focus is on the renewable heat incentive scheme and the losses incurred.
As others have said, when Mr Robinson's actions became the political focus, he voluntarily stood aside for an investigation to be completed and allowed government to function.  I suggest that you should do the same.  The renewable heat incentive was introduced in late 2012, when you were the ETI Minister — the Minister responsible.  A short time later, in 2013, further protections were added in GB.  There is tiering in GB, which greatly reduces the payment after a certain number of hours' usage.  There is also degression, which is quarterly changes in the level of support offered depending on the demand.  You, Minister, took the policy decision not to introduce either of those protections.  For that, you are answerable.  A vote was not put to the Assembly on that: you took that decision.  The Northern Ireland Audit Office report states that a poultry industry boiler used 24 hours a day would give an 82% annual return on investment at public expense.  Outrageous.
Minister, you then became Finance Minister.  I agree with the comments from my colleague:  a rugby hospital pass was given to Minister Bell.  Alarm bells must have been ringing in May 2015 when DETI sought reapproval of the renewable heat incentive with the Finance Department at a very senior level.  How was that handled from then on?  Assembly Member Bell's evidence tells of the DUP's OFMDFM SpAds — gatekeepers — causing delays in facing the problem.  Why are there delays in publishing the details of the companies and charities involved?  Can we have them?  How is it a data protection issue?  Who benefited during that critical period?  There are lots of questions that remain unanswered.  It appears that there was a lack of focus on value for money.  The assumption was, "Don't worry about it, because Westminster's picking up the bill".  It is all taxpayers' money.  Minister Foster, you were and are responsible —

Paul Frew: Will the Member give way?

Roy Beggs: The DUP did not give way to me on numerous occasions.  I am not giving way to you.
You are and were responsible for your special advisers, who have been out of control.  SpAds can be incredibly powerful.  We learned that in the Social Development Committee when I served on it, when we had to resort to the 1998 Act to uncover the result of an independent investigation of Stephen Brimason, the DSD special adviser, over Red Sky.  The investigation recommended that a formal disciplinary action be held, but the Minister refused to agree to it.

Alan Chambers: Will the Member give way?

Roy Beggs: I certainly will.

Alan Chambers: Do you agree that it is not unreasonable for the First Minister to be held accountable for her bad judgement in this case?

Caitriona Ruane: The Member has an extra minute.

Roy Beggs: Lots of decisions are made, and civil servants can present ideas to the Minister.  The Minister should also be looking more widely around her at what is happening elsewhere.  Ultimately, as the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, she took decisions and made judgements.  She decided not to introduce protections.
Stephen Brimason then gave evidence to the Social Development Committee, but he stonewalled it.  He kept saying, "I do not recall".  What happened to him?  Rather than being disciplined by the DUP, he was promoted by Peter Robinson.  Subsequently, what did Arlene Foster do?  She reappointed him.  Where is your humility?

Caitriona Ruane: I ask the Member to bring his comments to a close.

Roy Beggs: Clearly, we have too many SpAds.  They are too well paid.  They are paid even more than Ministers.
The power is going to their heads and they are protected by DUP Ministers.  Clearly, it is time to assess what has been happening.
[Interruption.]

Caitriona Ruane: Order.  The Member's time is up.  There is a huge amount of noise coming from my right.  I ask that Members refrain from being so noisy and interrupting other Members.

Lord Morrow: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.  The Member keeps talking about a Stephen Grimanson.  Who is Stephen Grimanson?  No person of that name ever worked for the DUP.

Caitriona Ruane: Will the Member take his seat, please.
[Interruption.]
I think that we all know to whom the Member is referring.

Roy Beggs: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.  Apologies, and I will clarify:  I was talking about Stephen Brimstone, if the Member does not know.
[Interruption.]

Caitriona Ruane: Order.  Before I take the next point of order, points of order must be heard.

Stephen Farry: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.  Can the record show that Stephen Brimstone actually worked for the Departments that he was a special adviser to and not the DUP, unless Lord Morrow has let the cat out of the bag when he says that Mr Brimstone worked for the DUP?

Caitriona Ruane: The Member's comments are on the record.  Let us move on.

Steven Agnew: From Department to Department, Arlene Foster has presided over a catalogue of failures.  As Environment Minister, she rejected multiple calls following a public consultation to implement an independent environmental protection agency.  Later, the Mills review highlighted the systemic failure in the then DOE and the £250 million clean-up cost that we could be faced with in dealing with illegal waste dumping.  There was an opportunity to put in proper regulation and enforcement, but Mrs Foster declined that opportunity, and the public will be left with the bill.
When she was Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister, we lost a £1 billion offshore wind farm project for Northern Ireland that would have been the largest in the whole of the UK.  The project was put together by an international consortium, including a business from Holywood in my constituency.  The self-appointed champion of foreign direct investment did not get involved and did not secure that investment for Northern Ireland, and another failure happened on her watch.
The renewable heat incentive scheme, which had been successful in the rest of the UK, has been botched in Northern Ireland alone.  Arlene Foster blamed it on her civil servants.  She blamed it on her successor.  She blamed it on the media.  She blamed it on the Opposition.  She blamed it on everyone except the person who was in charge at the time:  Arlene Foster.  She has form for blaming things on others and for abdicating responsibility to her civil servants.  When I was first elected to the House in 2011, I called her out for not declaring land that her husband owned in relation to a licensed fracking area.  She said that she had nothing to do with giving out petroleum exploration licences in Northern Ireland.  She said that she had not signed the licences; it was her civil servants.
What we are left with is a picture of a Minister who either does not accept the responsibility that she has or who is incompetent in discharging that responsibility.  I support today's motion of no confidence on behalf of the Green Party because I cannot have confidence in a Minister who does not stand up and take responsibility when things go wrong.  The media furore that has surrounded this debate — rightly, given the sums of money involved — could have been avoided had she stepped up at the time and, when the failings came to light, said that she got it wrong.  We would not have seen the heat that this debate has caused had she accepted responsibility from the start.
To have had a track record of such failure time and time again can only lead me to the conclusion that Arlene Foster is a very shrewd, a very ruthless and a very skilled politician.  Unfortunately, I can only conclude that she is an incompetent Minister.
The right thing to do would be to step down pending an investigation.  In any organisation, that is the normal due process when someone is accused of mishandling in their role, which is, indeed, the process that Mr Jonathan Bell has faced.  He has been accused of breaching party rules and has been asked to step down without prejudice and pending an investigation.  It is time that Arlene Foster did the same.
The people of Northern Ireland deserve answers.  They deserve to know how this was allowed to happen under Mrs Foster's governance.  They deserve to know what went wrong, and they deserve the confidence of knowing that the mistakes will be learned from and that, in future, such mistakes will not be made again.  They cannot, however, have that confidence while Arlene Foster remains at the helm and is involved in setting the terms of reference of any inquiry that goes forward.  The inquiry must be independent and judge-led, and we need to be confident that Mrs Foster's fingerprints will not be on that inquiry.
I hear the objection that today's motion does not go far enough, but I see no objection to the content of the motion, which asks Mrs Foster to step aside while she is investigated.

Caitriona Ruane: I ask the Member to bring his comments to a close.

Paul Frew: Of course, I reject the motion to exclude a Minister whom Northern Ireland needs to get us through some of the darkest weeks of devolution.  There is absolutely no doubt that these have been a dark couple of weeks.  There have been massive issues and failings, and they have to be investigated.  However, while they are being investigated, we need to ensure that we get something in place that can claw back into the public purse some of the money that has not yet been spent but is projected to be spent.  Of all MLAs, who is best placed to do that?  I believe that it is the First Minister, Arlene Foster.
I agree with Sinn Féin that today has been a circus, and I will tell you why.  For two weeks flat, the Opposition parties have been calling for the First Minister to come before them to address and answer their questions on the renewable heat scheme; yet, when they had the opportunity this morning, they walked out of this place.

Mike Nesbitt: I very much appreciate the Member giving way.  He will have heard the Speaker say that he was granting the statement under Standing Order 18A.  Will the Member tell the House what Standing Order 18A is?

Caitriona Ruane: I remind Members that we are debating a different motion.  The Member has an extra minute.

Paul Frew: The Member can take Standing Orders up with the Speaker.  I say to Mike Nesbitt that the public do not give a jot about what Standing Order he quotes.  They want to hear information about what we will do and the facts that led to this issue.

Stewart Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew: No, I will make progress.
Here is the issue.  I can tell you now that, if people feel that the First Minister has:
"failed to observe the highest standards of propriety and regularity in relation to the stewardship of public funds in relation to the renewable heat Incentive scheme"
we are all guilty.  We are all guilty because the scheme came before the House and we all voted for it.  It went through rigorous scrutiny.  I was on the ETI Committee with a lot of my colleagues and the Chairperson, Patsy McGlone, who did a sterling job and was a very decent and fair Chairperson.  We scrutinised it, as we did all legislation that came before us.  We scrutinised it to death.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
The House also voted to close the scheme, but, at that point:
"SDLP West Tyrone MLA Daniel McCrossan has slammed a decision by the Minister Jonathan Bell to axe the Renewable Heat Incentive. The loss of the scheme which funds renewable heating projects to produce renewable energy is predicted to cost 2,000 jobs with a business owner in Omagh expressing concern".
We also have Adrian Cochrane-Watson of the UUP saying:
"The original 31 March deadline for the sector should be reinstated and honoured." — [Official Report (Hansard), 15 February 2016, p60, col 1].
He went even further than that, saying that the Minister:
"needs to agree, through consultation with the industry groups such as the Federation of Master Builders, a phased winding-down period, which will allow businesses the opportunity to plan for the change in their revenue stream." — [Official Report (Hansard), 15 February 2016, p60, col 1].
How much longer did Adrian Cochrane-Watson want to give the scheme?
Of course, we had Jim Allister saying:
"Those who took up the scheme did so in good faith". — [Official Report (Hansard), 15 February 2016, p64, col 1].
There is a change.  All the businesses and domestic users involved have been ridiculed in the press over the last two weeks.  It is they who feel, "What is going on up there?"

Jim Allister: Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew: No, I will not give way.
[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order, Members.

Paul Frew: He said:
"They now find that they cannot do that and that it will cost them hugely." — [Official Report (Hansard), 15 February 2016, p64, col 1].
You cannot have it both ways, Members.  We are all responsible for our actions, and we are all responsible for this.
The welfare reform crisis cost this country millions of pounds, and, were it not for the actions of this party, it would have cost us £100 million every year.  The grass was growing long and potholes were not being filled, and those were only what the people could see; what about the waiting lists?  Where was the SDLP when that was happening?  It was playing politics, as it is with this issue.  People want to know what happened.  Let us have an independent investigation to see what happened.  Let us drive this country forward.  Who is best placed to do that?  The First Minister of this country, Arlene Foster.  Let us go forward and see whether we can organise a plan with the Finance Minister to try to draw back some of the projected spend.

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Paul Frew: That is what the people want to hear; they do not want to see walkouts.  You are elected to this place to serve the people.  Do not walk out of this place like a set of clowns.

Mr Speaker: As this is the first opportunity for Ms Joanne Bunting to speak as a private Member, I remind the House that it is the convention that a maiden speech is made without interruption.  However, if the Member expresses political opinions, she may well find that that is challenged.

Joanne Bunting: It may be pantomime season, but it would better serve this House to move away from play-acting and towards the resolution of a truly difficult situation in a spirit of cooperation and constructive behaviour.  We face a serious situation, and Members showed by their actions this morning that they were more interested in Assembly process around statements and grandstanding by means of this exclusion motion than in hearing from the First Minister and taking the opportunity to put a direct question to her on the issue.  We cannot, should not and must not be in a position where, every time an issue of significance is raised in the Assembly, politics is allowed to cloud that which is really important.
This motion seeks to exclude the First Minister.  To what end?  She has agreed to, and supports, an independent inquiry.  She has acknowledged and accepted her responsibilities, insofar as they lay with her.  At no time has she sought to shirk those responsibilities.  Rather, as is her way, she has sought to address the problem head on.  Members could have heard that this morning, had they remained with us.
Contrary to the principles of fairness or natural justice, the motion aims to exclude her without a shred of evidence of wrongdoing and, ultimately, on the basis that she followed advice.  We all agree with the convention that Ministers bear responsibility for that which occurs in their Departments, but at the root of this matter is the lack of cost control measures built into the scheme.  Let us remember that the brightest and best considered this scheme; it was pored over by experts from the departmental team and a team of highly paid consultants.  Indeed, it was pored over by the Assembly scrutiny Committee, which, in fairness to it, had no more expertise in this area than the Minister herself.
None of them found any remote problem at the time.  None of them expressed any concern at the time.  The fact remains that the Minister would have been rightly and roundly criticised for ignoring such advice.  It would be a bizarre state of affairs had we found ourselves in circumstances where, on receipt of confirmation from internal and external advisers that a scheme was correct and proper, a Minister did not follow that advice.  If the advice to the Minister was incorrect, then so was the advice received by the Committee.  The truth is that that advice convinced everybody who saw it, including the scrutiny Committee and every other party here.
What is important, for the sake of public confidence, is that the problem is rectified as quickly as is practicably possible and with the minimum expenditure of taxpayers' hard-earned cash.  Yet, very regrettably, this has not been the focus.  This is reflected even in the way in which this matter has been reported.  If they were interested in resolving this situation effectively and efficiently for the sake of public confidence, the media would have come forward with all the information at their disposal and not played this out like a soap opera.  They cannot have this both ways.  On the one hand, they say that it is the gravest, most significant situation that the Executive have ever faced.  Yet, on the other hand, they say, "We have news that is of critical import, but we will let you know tomorrow or maybe next week.".  This sensationalist, tantalising approach with a focus on "He said, she said" and how many people were in the room for some alleged row does nothing to foster an environment of conveying the facts with the purpose of finding a resolution as quickly as possible.  Instead, Ministers are asked to comment on emails that they are not shown, a line here or a paragraph there.  They call for openness and transparency with which we agree — all of us — but this is the opposite of how they behave.  Moreover, it ignores the root of the issue that the First Minister and the Minister for the Economy have been working hard to fix the fundamental problem and rein in the costs.
The First Minister has nothing to hide and nothing to fear — not the truth — as some have suggested this morning.  There is nothing from which she should or will run away.  What matters to her, to us and to the public is that this is fixed and who we trust to fix it.

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to conclude her remarks.

Joanne Bunting: To that end, I can say sincerely and wholeheartedly that, without question or a shadow of doubt, the one person in whom I have faith to do that is Arlene Foster MLA, the First Minister of Northern Ireland.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Patsy McGlone: This has been an interesting debate.  The nub of it has been that the inevitably of where we are today is that an everyone-but-Arlene tactic has been used to try to dump the blame on everyone, including officials, consultants, the media and every Assembly Member and Committee.  However, there is a distinction.  Not all of those individuals had advice, access to notes or to memos to the Minister from SpAds or senior civil servants; that is crucial in all of this.
Was any detail provided to the Minister or her special adviser about the risks potentially associated with this scheme?  None of that was available to any of the rest of us.  We certainly had no access to whistle-blower's letters, notes or minutes of any meetings held as a consequence of that.  Much has been made of that too.  We had no ministerial power to alter significant policy controls and checks to the RHI schemes.  Let us have it all out there, not selective leaking to the media and slippy auld press briefings.  All the detail should be investigated in full and before the public eye.
I have now to place on record my knowledge, based on information provided by officials to all members of the ETI Committee.  Indeed, a number of them are in the Chamber and were here for parts of the debate.
The sequence of events on the RHI, as we know, is as follows.  In November 2012, the scheme was introduced to the non-domestic sector.  Later, in December 2014, it was introduced to the domestic sector.  On 11 April 2013, the Committee asked the Department to provide biannual updates on the implementation of the scheme.  That resulted in an update being received more than one year later, on 5 June 2014, and later still, on 4 November 2014.  Despite requests for updates on a biannual basis, the Department did not consider it necessary to provide further progress reports or updates to the Committee.  Who was Minister?
The June 2014 briefing to the Committee stated:
"the current NI uptake compares favourably with the GB uptake at the same point in time on a pro-rata basis."
It went on to state:
"this suggests that the Northern Ireland RHI could experience a higher volume of applications but for smaller installations.  Projecting forward it could be expected that around 300 applications could be received by end March 2015."
Five months later, in November 2014, the briefing, again from the Department, stated:
"as of 15 October 2014 [Ofgem] have received 308 applications."
Fact.  Therefore, in November 2014, applications had already exceeded expectations for the projected March 2015 date.  What was done at departmental level?  Who was Minister?  The alarm bells were clearly ringing at that stage.
Officials informed the Committee on 9 February 2016 that the process of thinking about the issue and asking questions began in March 2015, when it was noticed that the level of applications was rising — three months after the Department had informed the Committee of the very same fact.  Officials said that the Minister was formally made aware of the problem in July last year.  We wonder what the informal briefings contained.  That was followed by the consultation on 22 July, which contained a proposal to introduce, among other things, demand-management measures from November 2015.
Given the fact that demand exceeded expectations and that this was apparent from as far back as at least November 2014, did anyone in the Department work out the impact of the announcement or think at least to ask this question:  what impact will this July announcement have on the level of applications between now and February and the introduction of new measures in November?  On the back of that, what advice was provided by the departmental officials to the Minister?
Even on 3 September 2015, the Enterprise Committee received a briefing on the RHI amendment regulations that continued to refer to the "recent success".

Mr Speaker: Will the Member conclude his remarks?

Patsy McGlone: There is no sign of any urgency there.  On the level of detail, we need a full public inquiry, and that rests with the First Minister.

Gerry Carroll: We are here today to discuss the scandal around the renewable heat incentive scheme — a scheme that saw hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money going up in smoke and hundreds of millions of pounds given to businesses in a lucrative handout that encouraged them to burn to earn.
It is a scheme that gave money to a car showroom with Ferraris out the front  There are empty sheds with 12 heaters on at full blast.  It is money down the drain while people are homeless or lie on waiting beds in our cramped hospitals.  This is not just a scandal but a crime against the people of this region.
These are the questions that everyone wants answered.  Who benefited from the scheme?  How many people linked to the Executive parties benefited from the scheme?  Where does the money trail lead you?  I support the motion, but I also call for immediate elections.  It is the only move that now makes sense.  The Executive have lost the confidence of the electorate, and people are outraged.  They are furious.  The people of the North should now have the chance to register that disgust at the ballot box.
Last week, the First Minister said, arrogantly, that she has nothing to hide, but she certainly does.  She was the architect of this whole scheme.  She intervened on several occasions to keep the scheme in operation despite warnings from senior civil servants and others about it.  This is not some administrative error or something on which Arlene can pass the buck.  Nowhere else in the world would allow politicians to get away with this.  Her position is untenable.
She should do the decent thing and step down.  If she does not, we will have to ask this:  where is the accountability?  People are beginning to draw the conclusion that it is one rule for the Executive and another for everybody else.  When teachers went on strike a few weeks ago, they were told that the money was not there.  When welfare reform was rammed through, people were lied to and told that there was no money to pay their benefits.  People in my constituency are unable to afford to heat their home and have to choose between heating and eating this winter.  We find out that, all the while, quite literally, money was being burned.  There was £485 million squandered on this scheme.  What does that say about the priorities of this Executive?
Only one question needs answered today.  Either there is a culture of gross incompetency in the Executive, or there is an endemic culture of corruption.  Which is it?  Time after time, Stormont has been racked by scandal:  Red Sky, NAMA, the social investment fund and now RHI.  People can be hauled in front of investigations and asked about every aspect of their life if they are on benefits and are asked every detail of their life to try to catch them out.  However, if you are a big company, you can avail yourself of a scheme that gives you cash for ash, and, if you are a politician, you can just sweep it under the rug.  You could not make it up.
People are right to have no confidence in our politicians when they see this kind of behaviour.  The Executive cannot be trusted to lead any inquiry.  It must be a public inquiry that is totally independent and has access to all the relevant documentation and personnel.  We want to see all the books opened not only for the RHI but for NAMA, SIF and Red Sky.  If Stormont will not do that, it will only fuel an angry public that believe some are once again trying to cover up and protect their own interests.  People are sick and tired of this Executive.  They want real change and answers from the Executive, not lip service.
As we look across the world, we see establishment politics everywhere in decline and in crisis.  The Executive should seriously consider that they, too, may feel the backlash from frustrated people in the near future.

Alastair Ross: There is no doubt that it has been an incredibly difficult time over the past two weeks for anyone involved in politics.  It is quite clear that the public are, quite rightly, angry about a scheme that, with hindsight, was poorly designed and badly administered.  It is remarkable to hear that some of the individuals who sat either as Chair or members of the ETI Committee or Members of the House who voted through that scheme are now looking back, being wise after the event and claiming that they knew it was wrong all along.  It is a remarkable thing that of everyone, including the external experts who gave guidance on this, the officials who were in the energy department and the media — all those individuals — no one flagged up any problems at the beginning of the scheme.  That is why some of the hyperbole that has been around today is hard to stomach.
What we heard from my colleague Joanne Bunting was a thoughtful and considered first contribution to the Assembly, and I think that it was one that shows that she will be a valuable asset to the Chamber.  That stands in sharp contrast to the antics we saw from other Members this morning when the opposition parties, to a man and woman, walked out of the Chamber and lodged a protest outside giving interviews to the media.  It was pantomime politics at its very best, and it shows that opposition parties are more interested in stunts than solutions.

Naomi Long: Your colleagues in the Executive were there too.

Alastair Ross: Again, I hear the leader of the Alliance Party chirping away in the background.  I listened to her contribution, and she must have had 10 or 11 questions she wanted answered.  Her constituents would quite rightly have expected her to turn up this morning when the First Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and to ask those questions and get them answered, but she did not.  She chose instead to go out to the Great Hall and give an interview about a range of issues that, quite frankly, the public could not care less about.
It is becoming increasingly clear, as this has gone on and on, that the First Minister in her current and previous roles acted at all times with the highest regard.  She has not done anything wrong, she acted appropriately at all times, as, indeed, her permanent secretary said in front of the PAC, and she has made herself available to answer all those questions.
In the last two weeks, we have also had the rather embarrassing circumstances in which leaders of the Opposition have put themselves on the airwaves not to make an informed contribution but to ask presenters questions about what is going on.
I know that, for some individuals, the old habit of asking questions rather than trying to answer them, dies hard, but what we had was not an opposition-driven policy or an attempt to hold the Executive to account; it was a media-driven thing, and some of the opposition parties tried to jump on the bandwagon.
I have just heard Mr Carroll make a comment that the First Minister was trying to sweep these issues under the carpet.  As soon as the issue became live, the First Minister gave an interview from China, where she was trying to get more jobs and investment for Northern Ireland to help our economy.  She said that she will waive convention and go in front of the PAC, which is not something that you would do if you had anything to hide.  Over the weekend, she supported an independent investigation into everything that is going on in the RHI scheme.  She has been working with the Economy Minister to try to make sure that we have something in place in early January to stop the costs of the scheme and reduce the cost.
We also heard some ill-informed commentary from Ms Bradley and Mr Carroll on the £400 million being squandered — it is not.  I do not know how many times they have to be told before they understand that not all of this money has been spent.  That is exactly why the First Minister and the Economy Minister are working to try to reduce that cost.
Today, we had the First Minister recalling the Assembly to give a statement and answer questions.  When she did, what did other Members do?  They walked away.  They abandoned their seats, and they failed to discharge their duties or ask the questions that their voters might, quite rightly, want them to ask.  The public care very little about procedures, points of order or Standing Orders.  What they saw this morning was a First Minister making herself available to answer questions, and opposition parties running away and failing to ask them.
Let me make some final comments about what we have in front of us.  This is an exclusion motion; it is not a vote of no confidence.  It is nothing other than an exclusion motion —

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Alastair Ross: — which is used for the most serious of offences.  Mrs Foster has not been found guilty of any offence.  She has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing.  We absolutely want the facts to come out, we want to support the PAC investigation, we want an independent commission and we want fairness.

Philip Smith: We have been called back from recess, supposedly to help to restore the public's confidence in our Government.  Today's events and lack of action from the First Minister and the Executive to tackle the RHI issue have no doubt diminished the reputation of these institutions even further.  We now have to wait for some unspecified time in the new year until we see an action plan for RHI and a Budget for this Government.  We needed to see leadership today from the First Minister and the Executive.  The Opposition are doing their part by playing their role in holding this Government to account.  We have raised this issue again and again in recent months, and now the BBC, via 'Spotlight' and 'The Nolan Show', has got its teeth into the story.  I pay tribute to its journalistic endeavours because the issue is now rightly on top of everyone's agenda.
Some 251,000 people sat up to watch Stephen Nolan's exposé last Thursday night, which is testament not only to the theatre of good journalism but to the interest and concern of the people of Northern Ireland in getting to the bottom of this mess.
This scandal — let us be in doubt that it is a scandal — has hit home with people much more than the litany of previous allegations and problems that have beset this Government.  The spat between Mr Bell and Mrs Foster was certainly jaw-dropping television.  On the waste of money, he said that DUP SpAds overruled him; she said that it was his decision alone.  On the emails, he said that DUP SpAds tried to change the email evidence trail; she said that there was no attempt to remove references to her Department and OFMDFM.  On the row, he said that she was hostile and abusive; she said that he was physically intimidating.  However, the focus must not be on the personality fight between, in their words, "aggressive" Bell and "hostile" Arlene.  The critical issue is the £485 million of our money that has been needlessly committed — the key word is "committed" — to a damaged scheme.
Who is responsible?  Who is accountable for this debacle?  Did the penny really drop only when the Treasury refused to pay the overspend?  Was it OK to fleece the UK Treasury?  They are our taxes too, do not forget, but the you know what hit the fan only when the block grant was impacted.  This is why we need a full investigation.  The public demand answers, and, this time, we cannot and will not be punted into the long grass.  It is also why the First Minister cannot credibly continue in her role until this scandal has been properly investigated.  This time, the scale of the failure is so enormous and so unique that it requires an exceptional response.
Although, of course, a First Minister standing aside in Northern Ireland is not exceptional.  We have been here before, and Mrs Foster has played a key role not once, but twice.  This time, it is different.  Previously, Mrs Foster stepped in for Mr Robinson for a period of six weeks — the maximum allowed — in order for Mr Robinson to deal with his family difficulties resulting from his wife's actions, and, more recently, as a political tactic to get him and his party out of a hole.  This time, Mrs Foster must stand aside to account for her own actions — her responsibility for the design and outworkings of the disastrous RHI scheme.
This is about leadership, as I said at the start.  The First Minister needs to think of what is best for Northern Ireland, not what is best for herself as a leader or for the DUP.  It is not party first but country first.  Brazening it out is not a sign of strength but of weakness.  The DUP can, of course, vote against everyone else and win a pyrrhic victory which will only further undermine public confidence and, understandably, push the public towards the Trumpism of wanting to drain the swamp.  Who could blame them?
We also need to see leadership from the other partners in government, Sinn Féin, and the Justice Minister, Clare Sugden.  Or, is Jonathan Bell correct:  it is all about collective responsibility?
In conclusion, the public expect action on this issue.  They rightly want an apology, action to mitigate the liability to the public purse and to see those who were responsible be accountable for their actions.  First Minister, this happened on your watch, under your leadership.  You need to go until the scandal has been fully investigated.  I support the motion.

Jim Allister: The First Minister clearly does not get it.  Otherwise, she would not be trying to spread the blame to everyone but herself.  The public and the taxpayer certainly get it, because they see to the heart of the matter that it was the Minister, and no one else, who signed off this flawed scheme, and who consciously and deliberately took out the tariff-tiering that was in the GB template and put in only the high tariff, who was the author of this squander made in Stormont.  There is no hiding place for the First Minister on that seminal issue, because it is her signature, and hers alone, which signed off the scheme on 13 April 2012 when she signed the declaration which stated:
"I have read the Regulatory Impact Assessment and I am satisfied that the benefits justify the costs".
That is signed by Arlene Foster, Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.  It is not signed by some hapless civil servant or some nameless consultant.  It is signed by the Minister.  Yet, when faced with the consequences of her negligence, she says, "Oh, it's the civil servants' fault" or "It's a consultant's fault".  It was even Mr McGlone's fault; it is all our faults.  But, it is not Arlene's fault.  Sorry, Arlene Foster and Arlene Foster alone signed the scheme into existence, and, from that flows the runaway nature of the scheme and the debt of the future.
She did not just fail there.  In 2013, Cambridge Economic Policy Associates said, "You need to get tiered tariffs into the scheme".  The Department, under Arlene Foster's watch, ignored it.  In 2014, Ofgem said the same, "You need to get tiered tariffs into the scheme".  On Arlene's watch, that was ignored.  When the scheme was approved in 2012 by DFP's Supply officer, the letter of approval said the scheme must be reapproved in March 2015.  The responsibility for ensuring that that happened rested with DETI, but it did not happen — because, again, asleep at the wheel — and the opportunity to correct it, to catch on and to get the tiering into it was missed.
All the Department can say is, "Administrative oversight".  No, not administrative oversight:  Minister asleep at the wheel.
Then, lo and behold, when suddenly they catch on that it needed to be reapproved, it is finally sent to DFP.  Who is the Minister by that stage in DFP?  Mrs Arlene Foster.  And who, in October 2015 — I remind the House that this is at the height of the spike in applications — is the Minister heading the Department that reapproves the scheme?  Mrs Arlene Foster.  So, whether in DETI or DFP, she is asleep at the wheel.

Claire Hanna: Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister: Yes.

Claire Hanna: Does the Member agree with me that the attempt by the DUP to cast the blame across the Chamber ignores the fact that the scheme voted for in February by the opposition was the amended scheme?

Jim Allister: Absolutely.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Jim Allister: Thank you.  We heard some nonsense today that some of us voted against the closure of the scheme.  No, we did not.  We voted against the closure of the amended scheme —
[Interruption.]
— the scheme that was amended in November, that had the tiers put into it, that was then rectified and became a fair scheme.  That is the scheme that was closed in February 2016, not the scheme in its original form with its runaway expenditure.  That is the scheme that the DUP brought in and that the Minister repeatedly endorsed.
We have heard much talk of affirmation, "Oh, we want public inquiries".  Do you?  If you do, then you will commit to one under the Inquiries Act, because only such an inquiry can call and compel witnesses.
There are DUP Members on these Benches who could tell a lot about this scheme, who could tell about their party donors who have benefited.  Lord Morrow, the party chairman, has disappeared.  He could tell us quite a lot about party donors who have benefited.

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Jim Allister: There are other Members on those Benches whose friends and family benefited from this scheme, as well as the friends and family of SpAds, but it is everyone's fault but theirs.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Jim Allister: Sorry, that is not how the public see it.

Edwin Poots: If Mr Allister had stayed in the Chamber as opposed to trotting out at the back of the flock like a little sheep, he would have heard what the First Minister had to say.  The First Minister said that she was sorry that the initial scheme did not contain cost control measures, that there were fundamental flaws in its design, that it was the deepest political regret of her time in the House and that, as Minister, she accepted responsibility for the work of the Department during her time at DETI.
At least the First Minister is taking responsibility.  Mr Allister, on the other hand, whenever it came to voting on this scheme, pushed and pressed that it was kept open until the end of March —

Jim Allister: The amended scheme.

Edwin Poots: He has had his opportunity and berated everyone, so he can listen for a moment or two instead of trying to talk over the top of people, because he is not going to succeed.

Jim Allister: Tell the truth.

Edwin Poots: Mr Allister would have cost us more money, as would all of the opposition parties that spoke today.

Mr Speaker: I ask Mr Allister not to speak from a sedentary position.

Edwin Poots: The SDLP, the Ulster Unionists and Alliance would all have put that bill of over £400 million up further, because they pressed for the scheme to be kept open for longer.
What we have today are the actions of a lynch mob.
[Laughter.]
Here we have the First Minister, who has come before the House, and there is no evidence whatsoever against her at this point, but we have a demand that she stands down, moves away and cannot do her job.
Let us go through the proper way of doing things, which we have grown up with in this United Kingdom — the British way of doing things.  That is, that people are found innocent until proven otherwise.
Mrs Foster has done her job in an exceptional way in all the positions that she has held.  She has been a superb First Minister.  I find it absolutely amazing that, when we actually have a woman First Minister, so many women want to drum her out of office.  That is a disgraceful action on the part of those Members.  Mrs Foster has done an exceptional job as the First Minister, and we will be backing her.  She will not be going anywhere.  She will not be stepping aside.  Get the message, folks:  she will not be stepping aside.  Also get the message in relation to the reviews of this:  there will not be a public inquiry; there will be an open and transparent inquiry.
[Interruption.]
I will tell you why there will not be a public inquiry.  When I took on the office of Health, I was informed that Minister McGimpsey had asked for a public inquiry on hyponatremia.  Mr Allister, who has just jeered me, asked a question the other day about how much that has cost so far.  I think that the answer was around £15 million.

Jim Allister: Thirteen million pounds.

Edwin Poots: Thirteen million pounds.  Let us hear it again:  £13 million to get the answers on hyponatremia.  That was asked for something like eight years ago, and we have still not heard those answers.

Danny Kennedy: Will the Member give way?

Edwin Poots: No, I will not give way.  I do not have time.  We have not heard those answers.  The truth is that hyponatremia issues have been dealt with by all the health services responsible to ensure that the mistakes that happened then are not repeated.  Let us be very clear:  we do not need to get into a process that lasts seven or eight years to seek answers or to spend tens of millions to identify the answers, so we will not be going down that route.  You can jeer all you like, but that is just not on the table.  I will give way now.

Danny Kennedy: I thank the Member for giving way.  The Member has, importantly, reminded the House that he did indeed serve as a DUP Minister.  Mr Poots, during your tenure, were you aware of a system of collective responsibility operated by the DUP team of special advisers?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Edwin Poots: I think that everybody in the House knows the issues of collective responsibility.  Where you have those cross-departmental issues, those kick into place.  I can assure the Member that, as a Minister, I made the decisions and no SpAds made the decisions for me.  I hope that, when Mr Kennedy was a Minister, no SpAds made decisions for him.  That is just a fact of life.  I made the decisions.  I stood over my decisions, which were sometimes right and, on the odd occasion, wrong.

Trevor Clarke: I thank the Member for giving way.  Maybe Mr Kennedy wants to make an admission about the ferry that he commissioned at a cost of £5·7 million that is now docked in Strangford.

Danny Kennedy: That ship will sail.
[Laughter.]

Edwin Poots: I will take Mr Kennedy's word for that, but I do recall that, when he was in office, the lights were off even though someone was at home.  We can all castigate various parties.  The truth is that today has been unbefitting of the House.  We have had walkouts, temper tantrums, grandstanding and all of those things.  That does not add anything to the House.  In fact, the opposition has come from —

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Edwin Poots: — the biased broadcasting corporation as opposed to Members who have been weak and inept.

Mr Speaker: Before I call Ms Claire Sugden, I ask Members to make their remarks through the Chair.

Claire Sugden: I rise to speak as the independent Member for East Londonderry.  The events that have unfolded today and throughout the past week are a farce.  I would kick the house of cards down myself if Northern Ireland did not have so much to lose.  Let it not be forgotten by all sides of the House that I have the capability to do just that.  I did not come back this morning because I did not want to take part in a theatre.  I was elected to serve the people of East Londonderry and then as Justice Minister to serve the people of Northern Ireland.  I am so privileged and fortunate in both roles given to me.  I was therefore deeply embarrassed, as a Member of the Assembly, to witness the antics this morning and the consistent berating of each other.  People are angry, disappointed and weary, and they should be.
Regrettably, it seems that we are demonstrating contempt for the people of Northern Ireland.  I do not speak for others, only myself, when I say that I am sorry that we as an Assembly have not been able to do what they expect of us and deserve from us.
When I was elected in May, I promised my constituents that I would address issues relating to older people, children and young people, domestic violence and mental health.  I believe that I am fulfilling those promises with my Executive colleagues.  I will stand by my recent comments that the Executive were working because, for the first time since the Good Friday Agreement, there is genuine acknowledgement among government partners that we must work together in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, and we were.  That is what the people want from us.  It is what they expect from us.
Nonetheless, the controversy surrounding the RHI scheme is devastating.  The commentary is shocking.  Allegations of corruption and cronyism make me feel sick.  The potential cost is unfathomable.  I certainly support a full independent investigation, judicially led if necessary, to clarify and substantiate information that is now in the public domain and, indeed, that which is not.  We must also seek to mitigate the devastating financial effects of this flawed scheme.
I will not support the motion tabled by the Opposition and smaller parties because I believe it to be premature.  You ask me to support a motion that excludes the First Minister on the basis of no confidence:  my confidence or, indeed, lack of confidence in the First Minister will be based on substantiated information, not allegations manifested in the media.  It would be remiss of me, particularly as Justice Minister, to pass judgement without a full investigation or hearing.  No court in the land would do so, so why is it appropriate to do so in the House today before a fair independent investigation?  The motion is premature.
If you will indulge me, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a point for the record.  This morning, as Justice Minister, I asked my permanent secretary to investigate allegations made in the media yesterday suggesting that, in the previous mandate, the Department of Justice, amongst others, was informed of the flaws of the scheme.  I am not suggesting that we table a motion for exclusion of those highlighted in the article, but I will suggest that we have an investigation that takes into account all Departments, Ministers, special advisers, officials and others and defines what knowledge, if any, they had of the flaws of the scheme, what they were aware of through any means, whether they were alerted to concerns about the scheme and whether they acted on that knowledge.

David Ford: Will the Member give way?

Claire Sugden: Not yet.  Public confidence in our institution is at its lowest.  I regret to say that this is a house of cards.  It is fragile.  I do not believe that a successful motion today would ensure public confidence.  It would bring the cards down.  I am not sure that any of us would get up again.  The people who would suffer most are the people of Northern Ireland.  What we need to do to ensure confidence is to announce a full independent investigation.

David Ford: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.  Ms Sugden started speaking as an independent Member and then chose to speak as Minister.  She referred to events in the Department whilst I was Minister of Justice and declined to take an intervention.  I want to put it on the record that I am absolutely content, having had a discussion with the permanent secretary this morning, that any papers involving my time in the Department of Justice should be released to a judicial-led public inquiry at the earliest possible time.

Mr Speaker: You have placed your remarks on the record, Mr Ford.

Christopher Stalford: This is an extremely serious turn of events for the Northern Ireland Assembly and the political institutions.  It is right that Ministers should be held accountable for their actions in and out of office.  It is right that public scrutiny should occur.  It is right that people should ask questions where they see issues and where they think that things have gone awry.  That is healthy in a democracy.  That is how a democracy should function.  It is regrettable, therefore, after more than a week of people taking to the air waves, casting aspersions and demanding answers from the First Minister and that she bring herself here to make herself accountable, that Mr Farry, in his contribution, said that he would look for a proper forum for accountability:  this is the proper forum.  This is the Northern Ireland Assembly.  We are sent here to govern for the people of this country.
If there is a proper forum for holding Ministers to account, it is here.  People —

Stephen Farry: Will the Member give way?

Christopher Stalford: Just one second, I want to make my point.

Mr Speaker: Let me remind the Member that if he takes an intervention during his speech, he will not get an extra minute as we do not have time.

Christopher Stalford: Bad luck, Stephen.
This is the forum, and people had the opportunity this morning.  After ten days of accusing the First Minister of all sorts, of accusing her of going to ground and hiding, and all of that sort of language that was being used, she came here and made herself amenable to all of the people who have made those claims about her. She sat there, she gave an account of herself and she offered all of you the opportunity to ask her questions.  The response?

Jim Allister: And where is she now?

Christopher Stalford: Well, oddly enough, Mr Allister, the First Minister has a country to run.  She is not heckling from the sidelines.

Some Members: [Interruption.]

Christopher Stalford: Yeah, yeah.

Mr Speaker: Order; order; order; order.  I ask the Member not to respond to those remarks made from a sedentary position, and I ask the Member not to make remarks from a sedentary position.

Christopher Stalford: I listened to the First Minister give an account of herself, and Members had the opportunity this morning.  She made herself open and available for any questions, and they chose; they chose not to take the opportunity.  Now, I understand; I have been in politics for a very long time and I understand that it would be easier and more convenient, perhaps, to go on the airwaves and make allegations, but if you wanted questions answered, you should have availed of the opportunity that the First Minister gave for you to ask them.
During the course of the debate, I heard several contributions that indicate to me that the people who are talking about accountability and questions that need answering are not really interested in the answers.  They do not really care about the answers.  For some people, this is about base politics.  It is about trying to topple the First Minister and bring down the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party.  I listened to Mrs Long's contribution, and she was perfectly reasonable in what she said, but other Members' contributions were truthfully, if we are being honest about it, malice dressed up as fairness.  They are not really interested in the answers.  What people want is a scalp.  They want to bring down the First Minister as a scalp, as a political notch — and that is not going to happen.
I welcome that she said there would be an independent inquiry into all of these matters and I hope it gets to the bottom of all of them, and that all of the paperwork and the email trails and what have you are put out there for people to see, so that they can make their own mind up.  It is clear to me, from a number of contributions in the House, not least by the Member for North Antrim, for whom, quite frankly, Arlene Foster could make every day 12 July and you still would not be happy with her.

Mr Speaker: The Member should conclude his remarks.

Christopher Stalford: Some people are not interested in facts; they have made their mind up.  Mr Poots was right:  this is a lynch mob.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Mike Nesbitt to wind up the debate on the motion, and the Member has ten minutes.

Mike Nesbitt: As it happens, I was in England at the weekend, and I am sorry to report that we are, collectively, a laughing stock.  I was picking my son up after his first term at university, and I remember my first term at uni in England in the seventies.  It was very difficult with the Troubles in full flow; everybody was suspicious of anybody from Northern Ireland.  Of course, thankfully, we have moved on from that, but now we have replaced suspicion with derision.  They know about it, and we are all tarred with the same brush.  This is about the integrity of the institutions.  It is about our collective reputation.
I ask the members of the Democratic Unionist Party to consider this: what have you done?  You have made Gerry Adams the white knight.  Gerry Adams stood forward over the weekend and said, "I am the man who will protect the reputation and credibility of these institutions", and you have done that; you have done that.
I listened to the First Minister over the weekend say that she looked forward to coming to the Chamber today to tell us about the plan that means that we will not lose £400 million.  I read her speech and there is no plan.  Even if there was —

Paul Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mike Nesbitt: I will make some progress first.
Even if there was, could we believe the DUP?  It had a plan to save the United Airlines flight to Newark, except there was no plan at all and it knew it and had to issue a ministerial directive to try to make it happen.  We have a plan.  There is a precedent at Westminster of introducing a windfall tax against excessive energy costs, and perhaps Westminster should consider doing the same with this.  There is a convention that says they do not interfere with devolved matters but, of course, in the Fresh Start Agreement, there is that commitment that the Government will legislate to make sure that we do not bring forward an imbalanced Budget again in the future.  There is a precedent for this Executive having their homework marked by the big boys in London.
We have another plan, not just the one to ask Mrs Foster to stand aside.  What about the special advisers?  Should Mr Johnston, Mr Bullick and Dr Crawford not be on gardening leave?  Is it right that they are still in the Department doing what they are doing as we investigate these issues?  I welcome the fact that Claire Sugden has at least finally spoken on the issue, although I would prefer something a little more definite.
Mrs Foster says that she cannot be across every jot and tittle.  I accept that Ministers do not have to do all the detail.  Ministers are there to do policy.  What was the decision to take control of renewables from DECC, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, in London?  That was Mrs Foster's policy decision.  What was it when the Department decided that it would not cut and paste and adopt the successful GB model?  That was a policy decision, not a jot or a tittle.  It was a decision by Mrs Foster on policy.  Of course, it was a policy decision to adopt what we now know was the fatally flawed renewable heat incentive in Northern Ireland with no cost control, as Mr Eastwood pointed out in his contribution.  That was in section 9 of the GB scheme and could have been cut and pasted.  Simply put, that digression model works very simply.  If there is one pound and only one person applies, they get the full pound, but if 100 people apply, they get a penny each.  That protects the integrity of your pot of money.  On Planet Foster, everybody who applied got the full pound, and that is why we are in the mess that we are in.  Either her fingers are all over these policies or she was asleep at the wheel.  Either way, she has to stand aside.
The colleagues to my left have brought renewables into disrepute.  Hundreds of people availed themselves of the scheme in good faith and now feel that they are being looked upon as criminals when they are not.  It is your fault.  You brought forward the scheme.
I do not have time to reflect on everybody's contributions during a three-hour debate.  Some of the contributions from the members of the Democratic Unionist Party are the most interesting to reflect on, not least that of Mrs Foster, who called the RHI a "debacle".  Indeed, Conor Murphy said that it was badly conceived.  She said, as others have, that this is about a ministerial scalp.  It is not about a ministerial scalp.  It is about ministerial responsibility — if it is to have any meaning in these institutions, Mrs Foster must do the honourable thing.  She is complaining about trial by television.  Why did she bother taking part?  Why did she walk into the trial and give the interview?  She wanted to distract from the issues, did she not?  The Bell/Foster spat is nothing more than a mere distraction.  She says that we have not yet established the truth, yet, in her contribution, she said that the truth is being twisted out of all recognition.  How does she know that it is being twisted if she does not know what the truth is?
She did not mention the email that may be her undoing, sent by the whistle-blower on 3 September 2013 to arlene@arlenefoster.org.uk, which includes this line:
"the incentive to use more is leading to misuse in some cases".
Evidence in black and white that there was a fatal flaw in the scheme, identified by the whistle-blower, who said that it only took her five minutes on the Internet to discover the problem.  She emailed the First Minister in early September 2013.
Mr Givan says that you are innocent until proven guilty — unless you are Jonathan Bell, of course, Mr Givan.  The DUP are lily-white.  Never mind Red Sky, NAMA, the social investment fund and all the other scandals that have preceded the renewable heat incentive.  Mr Givan wants to blame the media.  Well, if he thinks that the BBC is at fault, he should complain to Ofcom.
Michelle O'Neill said that the DUP is missing the public mood and then talked about the delivery of the Executive.  Did anybody see the tweet from the Northern Ireland Executive on Friday?  It said:
"This week the Executive has ... secured good deal for fisheries, announced €23 million on greenways and secured an £8 million contract with 170 jobs."
Did they mention £400 million of an overspend on RHI?  No, they did not.  How about the £13 million overspend on the social investment fund?  No, they did not.  They are very capable of spinning.
Lord Morrow, in his magnificent contribution, said that some people are intent on generating a whole lot of heat.  He talked about politicians grabbing headlines, spinning and exaggerating.  At Christmas time, it was nice to be reminded of the antics of the late Dr Ian Paisley.
Jenny Palmer spoke, as you would expect, as someone who has been subjected to character assassination.
From Mr Hamilton, our Economy Minister, there was no acceptance of ministerial accountability.  He said that this is all happening at the behest of his political opponents.  However, Sinn Féin wants it.  Are they opponents?  What a remarkable statement.
Joanne Bunting, making her maiden speech, after all this time, talked about fairness and natural justice.  Once again, is that being afforded to Mr Bell?  There was no mention or acknowledgement of the whistle-blower.
According to Alastair Ross, this was a stunt by the opposition parties.  I think not.
Mr Poots talked about a lynch mob.  Well, I can assure him that there are no members of the Third Force on these Benches.  There are no red berets under our beds.
In conclusion, in the absence of a fresh inquiry, the Public Accounts Committee is the only show in town.  I urge the members of PAC not to vote today.  Do not allow yourself to be accused of being compromised.  Mrs Foster says that this is a "debacle".  The 'Oxford English Dictionary' defines that as "a sudden and ignominious failure".  It is a story of incompetence, ineptitude and haplessness.
Mr Speaker, we will now vote.  Those who go that way are voting for their career.  Those who go this way are voting for the integrity of these institutions.

Mr Speaker: Members, before we proceed to the Question, I remind you that this motion requires cross-community support.
Question put.

The Assembly divided:
 Ayes 39; Noes 36
 AYES 
 NATIONALIST: 
 Mr Attwood, Ms S Bradley, Mr Durkan, Mr Eastwood, Ms Hanna, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McNulty, Mr McPhillips, Ms Mallon, Mr Mullan
 UNIONIST: 
 Mr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr Beggs, Mr Chambers, Mrs Dobson, Mr Hussey, Mr Kennedy, Mr McKee, Mr Nesbitt, Mrs Overend, Mrs Palmer, Mr Smith
 OTHER: 
 Mr Agnew, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Carroll, Mr Dickson, Dr Farry, Mr Ford, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr E McCann
 Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Aiken, Mr McNulty
 NOES 
 UNIONIST: 
 Mr Anderson, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Foster, Mr Frew, Mr Girvan, Mr Givan, Mrs Hale, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mrs Little Pengelly, Ms Lockhart, Mr Logan, Mr Lyons, Mr McCausland, Miss McIlveen, Mr McQuillan, Mr Middleton, Lord Morrow, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Stalford, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
 Tellers for the Noes: Mr McQuillan, Mr Robinson
Total Votes75Total Ayes39[52.0%]Nationalist Votes12Nationalist Ayes12[100.0%]Unionist Votes51Unionist Ayes15[29.4%]Other Votes12Other Ayes12[100.0%]
Question accordingly negatived (cross-community vote).
Adjourned at 4.16 pm.